'The Lion King' (2019) Review

Nominated For: Best Visual Effects.

Synopsis: In the African savanna, a future king is born. Simba idolizes his father and takes his royal destiny to heart. But not everyone in the kingdom celebrates the new cub's arrival. Scar, former heir to the throne, has plans of his own. The battle for Pride Rock is soon ravaged with betrayal, tragedy, and drama, ultimately resulting in Simba's exile. With help from a curious pair of newfound friends, Simba must mature and take back what is rightfully his.

Runtime: 118 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG (for sequences of violence and peril, and some thematic elements)

Who should see it? Families and fans of Disney's live-action remakes.

Adapted from the iconic 1994 animated incarnation, The Lion King is directed by Jon Favreau as Disney's latest "live-action" retelling. Considering the 2019 version was rendered from scratch, it's challenging to categorize The Lion King as animated or live-action since it's the first of its kind. Favreau and Disney classified this uncharted territory as "live-action filmmaking techniques with photorealistic computer-generated-imagery" which is essentially jargon for a CG-production. Utilizing the groundbreaking technology that was employed in the making of Avatar and The Jungle Book (2016), animators meticulously recreated much of the original film's classic iconography to appear alarmingly photorealistic. Though certainly a remarkable technical achievement, this innovation comes at a steep cost. 

The Lion King is undeniably an impressive two-hour visual effects demonstration, but it sorely lacks the personality and energy of the original. This is largely because Favreau set parameters for his team of animators and vfx artists, which only allowed the animals to express emotion as they would in real life. As a result, the disembodied voices of an A-list ensemble are solely responsible for conveying their characters' emotional responses. Yet, vocal performances from veteran actors also fell flat. I'm unsure if this stemmed from Favreau's direction or the acting talent themselves, but the voice-over was mostly monotonous delivery of familiar dialogue. Jeff Nathanson adapted Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts, and Linda Woolverton's screenplay while Brenda Chapman received story credit as the animated film's story supervisor. However, none of the other twenty-five writers or credited crew involved with the first film were recognized. I'm aware that Timon and Pumbaa's trademark motto "Hakuna Matata" means "no worries," but I have several.

For a remake so beholden to the original, I'm baffled to learn this is the case on account of semantics concerning protections and residuals from Writer's Guild and the Animation Guild. Credit logistics aside, The Lion King retains approximately 80-85% of the first film's dialogue and replicates almost the entirety of its predecessor's visuals. A few additional scenes serve as supplemental story material to overtly explain the story's subtleties, which didn't really need to be shown. Otherwise, it's basically a shot-for-shot recreation with minor tweaks. Worst among these changes is the replacement of Hans Zimmer's score with Beyoncé's original song "Spirit" in the scene where Simba decides to return to Pride Rock. The scene, which is supposed to be a profound moment with an epic accompaniment, is instantly cheapened by a typical Beyoncé song that is hysterically out-of-place. Not to mention, Mufasa reappears to Simba as a generic cloud that only resembles a lion during instantaneous flashes of lighting. Favreau's insistence on grounding this tale in realism increasingly grew more and more absurd when I realized singing animals were part of the equation.

Chief among my complaints, The Lion King's larger-than-life musical numbers were staged in literally the least exciting way imaginable. The photorealistic approach naturally confined Favreau's creativity in this regard, but animals simply walked or ran around their environment while singing. It was rather dull to watch, and the lyric annunciation and syncopated rhythms of the songs are changed to better suit the actors I suppose. Without the heightened exaggeration and vibrant colors front-and-center in the 1994 animation, these songs are hardly any fun. The cast's singing ability is there for the most part, though there are some glaring exceptions such as Seth Rogan's Pumbaa. It's mercifully brief, but nobody involved bother trying to mask it via auto-tuning as Disney did earlier this year in Aladdin (2019).

Maybe, I'm being a bit harsh in actively comparing this reimagining to the first film. However, it's nearly impossible to avoid doing so since it borrows so much and is a downgrade in almost every respect. I've attested to the emotional disconnect intentionally inserted by Jon Favreau, and that decision alone seems to have stifled the possibilities that accompany bringing this story to life. Even standing entirely on its own, this iteration lacks the emotional vitality necessary to tell this story. The effects are incredible, but everything is a soulless rendering. Young Simba is admittedly a cute cub, but he's hardly capable of emoting. When Mufasa was trampled by a stampede of wildebeests (spoiler alert?), Simba's vacant expressions matched my own. Otherwise, Hans Zimmer probably earned the easiest paycheck of his life as his score is virtually identical aside from a couple new refrains and slight occasional re-arrangements.

I briefly addressed the ensemble, but I was amazed to see such high-profile talent lend performances devoid of personality when they seemed like ideal casting choices. JD McCrary, Shahadi Wright, Donald Glover, and Beyoncé portray Simba and Nala respectively at varying stages of life. The quartet's voices shine in the musical numbers but are otherwise serviceable. The legendary James Earl Jones reprises the role of Mufasa, and even he failed to spark life into a character which he'd already made iconic. Perhaps, it's due to his age, but that doesn't explain the other's inconspicuous contributions. Amongst the supporting cast, John Oliver's Zazu and John Kani's Rafiki are unusually restrained when compared to their animated counterparts while Afre Woodard's Sarabi practically serves as set decor. 

Not all is lost, though. Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan were sure-fire stand-outs as Timon and Pumbaa and the sole source of successful comic relief. The rapport between Eichner and Rogan is unique, but true to the spirit of Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella's dynamic from the original. The duo breaks the fourth wall in fun and exciting new ways, but it occurred a little too often and risked veering towards being Deadpool-esque at times. However, I will admit to breaking out in a fit of laughter at the subversive and abrupt ending to their amusing remix of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight."

Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar speaks with a hushed intensity that sets him in the shadow of Jeremy Irons' eccentric take. The cunning and manipulative tendencies remain, but the larger-than-life malevolence is stripped away. Florence Kasumba, Keegan-Michael Key, and Eric André portray the prominent trio of hyenas and are equally subdued.

Given the enormous success of Disney's other live-action re-imaginings, a remake of The Lion King was inevitable. After seeing The Jungle Book, I'll admit that I was also interested in seeing Jon Favreau take a stab at it. I now deeply regret that request as in the theater I often sang to myself, "Oh, I just can't wait for this to be over."

Film Assessment: D+

'Spider-Man: Far From Home' Review

Synopsis: Our friendly neighborhood superhero decides to join his best friends on a European vacation. However, Peter's plan to leave super heroics behind for a few weeks are quickly scrapped when he begrudgingly agrees to help Nick Fury uncover the mystery of several elemental creature attacks, creating havoc across the continent.

Runtime: 129 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sci-fi violence, some language, and brief suggestive comments)

Who should see it? Marvel fans of all ages.

**Spoiler Warning for Avengers: Endgame**

Billed as the end of Marvel's "Infinity Saga" and third phase of superhero outings, Spider-Man: Far From Home sees Spider-Man: Homecoming creatives Jon Watts, Chris McKenna, and Erik Sommers swing Peter Parker across the Atlantic to embark on a globe-trotting adventure in the wake of Avengers: Endgame's poignant resolution. Though Iron Man is a no-show, Tony Stark's shadow looms over the production as the world mourns the heroic billionaire-philanthropist and asks who will step up to fill the void Stark left behind. All the while, Peter feels lost without his mentor. Clearly traumatized by all he's endured, Peter's unsure if he's ready to singlehandedly accept the responsibility associated with super-heroics when he'd rather partake in the pleasantries of an average teenage life. 

Peter's struggle to balance both identities has been a staple of the character across every medium since his creation, but that dilemma is especially prevalent in Far From Home. Every incarnation of the web-head deals with this eventually, but I particularly like how this version is doing so while still in High School. Fighting elemental creatures made of fire and water is just as challenging as telling a girl he likes her, and that aspect of the character makes Peter more relatable than most superheroes. Not to mention his headspace after Endgame further complicating matters.

Returning director Jon Watts ups the ante of Spidey spectacle, seemingly more confident helming action after his experience on Homecoming, as he and his crew deliver sequences I'd never have imagined to be possible on the big screen. The visual effects were noticeably an improvement over Homecoming as well while the spectacular new suits Spider-Man dons throughout the flick each have their moment in the limelight. Underneath it all, Michael Giacchino's varied orchestral arrangements provide an ideal accompaniment to the wall-crawler's international exploits.  

Swinging onscreen for his fifth outing as Spidey, Tom Holland continues to portray Peter Parker with the appropriate awkwardness and insecurity contrasting his youthful exuberance. He's solidified himself as my favorite iteration of Spider-Man by this point, and I hope he carries on with the role in years to come! Opposite Holland, Zendaya's MJ proves to be more than a strange, snarky side character as she's fleshed out through her interactions with Peter.

Meanwhile, Mysterio's live-action debut piqued my interest as I was thrilled to see he would be brought to the big screen complete with the green/gold suit, purple cape, and glorious fishbowl helmet. Underneath said helmet, Jake Gyllenhaal lends manic energy to Quentin Beck that was an utter delight to witness. Discussing the character in detail risks spoiling the movie's many twists and turns, but I was pleased it proved to be a faithful onscreen adaptation.

Filling out Peter's class, Jacob Batalon, Angourie Rice, and Tony Revolori return as Ned Leeds, Betty Brandt, and Flash Thompson while Remy Hii is introduced as new student Brad Davis. The young cast offers humorous depictions of familiar high school personalities. However, some comedic bits in the first act didn't stick the landing. 

Reprising their roles from other corners of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Samuel L. Jackson, Cobie Smulders, and Jon Favreau each appear as Nick Fury, Maria Hill, and Happy Hogan respectively. One of the joys of the MCU is witnessing characters come together and interact with one another for the first time, so it was nice to watch these characters bounce off Peter. Other noteworthy adult characters include Marisa Tomei's dependable Aunt May and Martin Starr and J.B. Smoove as a pair of wacky high school teachers chaperoning the trip. I noticed people leaving my theater, so I felt it was worth reiterating that you should stick around after the ending for two pivotal post-credit scenes.

Full of laughs, action, adventure, and awkward teen romance, Spider-Man: Far From Home is a spectacular sequel that delivers everything audiences have come to expect from an entry starring the celebrated web-slinger. Far from what I'd imagined I would walk away thinking, Far From Home is also my new favorite live-action Spider-Man film.

Film Assessment: A

'Spider-Man: Homecoming' Review

Spider-Man: Homecoming is set two months after Peter Parker's exciting encounter with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War. Parker's returned to his humble home of Queens, New York so that he may balance his life as an average high school student and the friendly, neighborhood Spider-Man under the watchful eye of Tony Stark. Trouble emerges when Parker discovers salvaged alien tech exchanging hands on a black market to be utilized in a series of heists and Peter realizes it's the opportunity of a lifetime to garner Stark's praise and prove he's deserving of joining the Avengers.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is drastically different from any of the wall-crawler's previous outings for a number of reasons. One, it's the first time the web-head's had a chance to swing around the greater Marvel Universe and I felt the MCU references and tie-ins were handled rather tastefully. Two, none of the other Spider-Man movies have really dealt with Peter Parker's time in high school and Homecoming hits that ball out of the park, not to mention how refreshing it was to see a Spider-Man movie that wasn't bogged down with the long-established origin story.

Jon Watts directs Homecoming in the vein of a John Hughes teen comedy, going as far to give one of those memorable movies a shout-out. From beginning-to-end, Watts is able to place viewers on the ground level of the Marvel Cinematic Universe while in the headspace of a teenager facing difficult dilemmas. Watts maintains the upbeat attitude well into the two hour thirteen minute runtime considering Homecoming is one of Marvel's funniest ventures yet!

Most of the humor is situational, derived from practical occurrences Spidey's never really found himself in before, and the screenplay penned by Watts, Johnathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Christopher Ford, Chris McKenna, and Erik Sommers makes great use of these moments as strategic sources of comedic relief. The writers find inventive ways to playfully prod at the web-slinger as circumstantial comedy continually comes to the surface and the fresh take on Spidey is oddly the most faithful swing from source material audiences have ever seen. 

Spider-Man has always been one of my favorite superheroes so I can't express how delighted I was to finally see him realized to his fullest potential. I've never really been a fan of Tobey Maguire's take on the web-head and Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker just didn't seem nerdy or awkward enough. I was hopeful Holland would deliver both sides of the troubled teen based on the glimpse we got in Civil War and boy was I right (more on that in a moment)! Almost everything about this iteration reminded me of the classic comics and hearing Michael Giacchino's orchestral arrangement of the trademark theme as a backdrop to the Marvel Studios intro gave me chills.

Homecoming's action doesn't slouch either with some satisfactory sequences interspersed amidst the high school drama. While there's not anything that will hold a candle to the airport battle in Civil War (something I'm unsure will be surpassed till Avengers: Infinity War at the very earliest), I was earnestly entertained from start-to-finish. Among other technical components, there's competent costuming, proficient production design, and the visual effects made Spidey's web-slinging, swinging, and wall-crawling appear to be incredibly authentic. 

Despite my overwhelming enthusiasm, I had a few concerns about Homecoming based on the marketing material and am relived to see none of my worries translated to the big screen. For starters, the trailers relied so heavily on Tony Stark that I was slightly concerned the movie might as well. I was never in the mindset this would be Iron Man 4 but I did feel the movie might lean a little too heavily on that crutch or RDJ would take over all the scenes he shared with Holland. Just so you don't walk into this movie thinking it's the Stark show, I'll inform you that a majority of his scenes have been prominently featured in the trailers but there's enough under the table that you won't feel cheated.

I also thought the trailers seemed to reveal some pressing plot points but rest assured, there are some terrific twists left in store. If you haven't seen any trailers though, I would avoid them if at all possible. Oh, and that image included above that's been prominently displayed in nearly every trailer IS NOT featured in the movie in any capacity so I'll let you know that now rather than be disappointed while watching the flick.

The final source of unease materialized when I saw the suit Stark fabricated for Peter had a seemingly infinite number of convenient features. However, they serve a story purpose and weren't nearly as excessive as I thought they would be instead coming off as a couple bells and whistles to top things off. 

One thing that definitely won't let you down though is Tom Holland's turn swinging around New York. Holland expertly embodies the crucial characteristics necessary to portray the dual identities Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Holland exhibits an authentic awkwardness and excitability to his Peter Parker that's never as over-exaggerated as Maguire or unbelievable as Garfield. Not to discredit the actors who came earlier but Holland brings a youthfulness the predecessors were never able to.

His Spidey has a energetic exuberance about him that any teenager with those powers would display, he's more enthusiastic than Maguire but he doesn't get too quippy like Garfield. To make matters even better, Holland is the youngest actor to portray the web-head to date. Despite being 20 years of age, Holland sells the youthful nature of Parker and you'll buy into the fact he's in high school. He also demonstrates some extraordinary acting chops opposite more experienced actors, never getting overshadowed by RDJ, Marisa Tomei, or Michael Keaton but challenging them all to play ball. 

Surrounding Holland are an excellent assortment of adolescent actors who each offer eccentric personas around Midtown High including the likes of Jason Batalon, Laura Harrier, Zendaya, Tony Revolori, Abraham Attah, and Angourie Rice as the nerdy Ned Leeds, lively Liz Allen, madcap Michelle, brash Flash Thompson, aloof Abe, and bratty Betty. Batalon in particular stood out as not only a fantastic friend but an endearing presence. Laura Harrier's Liz locates a tricky balance between being the popular senior and Peter's down-to-earth captivating crush while Zendaya doesn't have much to do but snap snide, sarcastic remarks. 

Donald Glover also has a minuscule supporting role outside the high schoolers, worth noting simply because of the actor's profile right now. Especially when you compare his screentime to all the speculation surrounding his casting. However when onscreen, he showcased trademark charm that I can't wait to see him wield as Lando Calrissian in the untitled Han Solo spin-off. 

In the adult camp, Marisa Tomei reprises her role as a youthful iteration of Aunt May and I've gotta say Tomei's May makes her mark. She's unique when compared to the precursors based on age alone, which factors not only into some humorous gags but also weaves its way into the narrative. This May is looking out for Peter not only as a maternal figure but also in trying to help Peter with his social life and I liked how she factored into Peter's story.

Along his journey, Peter receives muddled mentorship from Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark and Stark's assistant Happy Hogan, played by Jon Favreau. RDJ puts forth a cool disposition, exhibiting the confidence that gravitated audiences towards Iron Man in the first place while Favreau's Happy is as charming as ever. Oddly enough, I think Favreau may have had more screen time than RDJ but both are excellent in the capacities utilized. 

Meanwhile, Parker finds himself up against the villainous Vulture portrayed by none other than Batman himself, Michael Keaton. Keaton's a high caliber actor so the gravitas he carries onscreen enables Vulture to be menacing and his alter-ego Adrian Toomes to come across as a relatable everyman. Keaton flies Marvel forward in terms of their universe's villains by depicting a multifaceted malevolent force. He's not quite up to the heinous heights of Loki but don't discount the Vulture on his status as a B-level member of Spidey's rogues gallery. 

Spider-Man: Homecoming won't be in theaters till July 7th but you'll definitely want to conserve your web-fluid so you can swing into theaters for this one. In the meantime, I highly recommend checking out Baby Driver if you're searching for something to see this weekend (you can read my review by clicking on the blue hyperlink). To spin all my thoughts into one contrived cobweb, Spider-Man: Homecoming is easily the most entertaining incarnation of the web-head since Spider-Man 2. Glad you finally made it home Spidey!

Film Assessment: A-

'The Jungle Book' (2016) Review

Nominated For: Best Visual Effects.
Won: Best Visual Effects.

The Jungle Book is the latest adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's book, and I'll outright say that it's the best adaptation to date. Some of you are probably thinking that I'm insane declaring this to be superior to the 1967 animated The Jungle Book, but hear me out. This is the latest of Disney's push to make live-action adaptation of some of their classic films, but I don't think this film classifies as live-action since the entire film was shot on a sound stage in Los Angeles. 

The only real, tangible aspects to the film are Neel Sethi as Mowgli and small portions of the set for Sethi to interact with. Aside from that, the remainder is entirely CGI. Yes, EVERYTHING. The jungle environments, the sky, the water, and the animals. All animated.  And it's breathtaking, especially in 3-D. Now while we have seen this previously in films like Avatar or Life of Pi, this film progresses the technology going one step forward and not only making these environments and creatures seem lifelike, but also making the delivery of dialogue from the animals actually look believable as well. It's clear that the crew spent plenty of time researching the animals integral to the narrative. The animators include subtle movements for the animals that make them seem all the more real such as Shere Khan's stealthy stroll, Baloo's slow bear trod, and Bagheeera's ears flicking every now and then.

The crew even took it a step forward by ensuring to find animals quite similar to those found in the story that would actually be found in that part of the Indian Jungle. For example, instead of making King Louie an orangutan, they decided to make him a Gigantopithecus. This serviced the film in two ways by providing an over looming ape that monkeys would obviously be subservient to and also finding a creature close enough to an orangutan that actually could be found in India, although Gigantopithecus are extinct. Now many of you are probably thinking I was merely wowed by the animation, but there is so much more to this film. 

First and foremost, Jon Favreau went above and beyond as director. Since Neel Sethi was acting opposite virtually nothing, he made sure to create a comfortable atmosphere for the child star by utilizing animal puppets and even acting in place of the animals himself in some cases, to be taken out in postproduction of course. Favreau did a phenomenal job stitching together all of the terrific work from each respective department to create a truly terrific movie. 

Secondly, the screenwriter, Justin Marks, ensures that he adds much more depth and sophistication to the tale (or at least the animated version, I can't speak for the actual book since I haven't read it). We're all quite familiar with the basic story itself and so I won't really delve into that, especially since I included that in my Throwback Thursday Review of the animated incarnation. In comparison to Disney's other live-action fairytales and how close they stuck to their respective animated sources of inspiration, I'd say it falls somewhere between Cinderella, which was largely a clear cut live-action version of the animated film with relatively few changes, and Maleficent, which almost completely ignored the continuity of Sleeping Beauty. So for those expecting something along the lines of a clear-cut shot for shot remake of the animated version, you may be disheartened. Favreau does however take into account the love general audiences have for the animated classic and includes plenty of visual imagery homaging the animation. 

One new aspect I really liked was that the jungle is treated as a society of it's own (More along the lines of what can be found in The Lion King rather than Zootopia though). The various characters are also fleshed out much more than the animated version, placing emphasis on their relationships with Mowgli, whether they be friendly or antagonistic. Also, the film captures a whirlwind of emotions with something for everyone. The film captures the lighthearted fun of the original, snippets of action and adventure in some intense moments, thanks to Shere Khan, that may scare some young children, and provided scenes with a gripping emotional core. 

In regards to performances, The Jungle Book assembled quite an impressive cast. The one element that was going to make or break this film was the actor portraying Mowgli and Neel Sethi delivered. Sethi managed to act opposite the CGI creatures quite convincingly and also gave a great performance as well. Sethi embraced the innocence of Mowgli and really brought out the most of his childlike persona and sold it. I loved that his character was written so that he asked questions any child would ponder but while refraining from making it obnoxious. 

Bill Murray comes into the role of Baloo injecting tons of fun into the film with his sarcastic one liners that definitely earned some laughs and he doesn't stray from the zany personality either. I also really bought into the brotherhood between Mowgli and Baloo thanks to both performances and the chemistry between the two actors (even though it's only Murray's voice). Sir Ben Kingsley manages to expertly balance Bagheera's overprotective demeanor with a mixture of responsibility and pride in Mowgli brilliantly conveyed through merely his voice. 

Lupita Nyong'o is the emotional core as Raksha and serves the story as best she can in her limited screen time. Opposite her, Giancarlo Esposito makes for a believable leader and father figure albeit his limited screen time. Christopher Walken balances charisma with a looming menace as King Louie, who's much more of a mob boss this time around as opposed to the zany king. Scarlett Johannson captivates the audiences as Kaa, utilizing the snake hisses to the fullest even though she's in the film for about five minutes. Regardless, a terrific choice for Kaa. 

Last, but certainly not least, Idris Elba makes a masterful villain of Shere Khan, projecting his malevolent gravitas so far that you can feel the terror when his name is mentioned. Shere Khan is introduced much earlier in this version, which I prefer because it adds gravity to the situation, giving audiences a taste of what Shere Khan is capable of. 

Lastly, I'll discuss the use of music in the film. The score takes the classic songs everyone knows and loves and expands upon them by converting them into full orchestral epics. The score is embedded to match the scenes with each perspective character, such as "Trust In Me" being paired with Kaa. Don't worry though as the film doesn't cower away from any singing like Disney's previous live-action fairytales. In fact, the renditions of "I Wanna Be Like You" and "Bare Necessities" were a ridiculously fun time. If you stick through the credits you will be rewarded with a nifty credits sequence utilizing these songs, no post credits scene though. Looking forward, I really hope The Jungle Book is remembered during awards season, and it's no wonder the sequel was greenlit before the film opened.

In summary, The Jungle Book seems to be the best incarnation of the source material possible with fun for everyone providing content all ages can enjoy and I only wonder how the upcoming Warner Bros version directed by mo-cap exert Andy Serkis will fare. Now, can we get a version of The Lion King using this technology?

Film Assessment: A+

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Iron Man 2'

This week I will be starting my Throwback Thursday Reviews correlated with the upcoming Captain America: Civil War by reviewing the remaining Iron Man and Captain America films I have yet to review. I figured I'd tackle one of the more controversial Marvel films, Iron Man 2, and next week I will review the classic animated The Jungle Book before the live action incarnation drops.

'Iron Man 2' Review

Nominated For: Best Visual Effects.

Iron Man 2 can be generally conceded as one of the missteps for the Marvel Cinematic Universe but nonetheless is quite entertaining. Iron Man 2 picks up right where the first one left off where Tony Stark announces to the world that he is indeed Iron Man but from a different perspective introducing Ivan Vanko, the villain of the piece. It then jumps forward a few months to Tony kicking off the Stark Expo, a Stark Industries equivalent of the New York World Fair, and we soon learn that the arc reactor keeping the shrapnel out of his chest also happens to be slowly killing him. This allows for a very interesting subplot for the film that isn't really given the depth that the severity of the situation deserved and unfortunately is shoved aside for a lot of set up for Marvel's Cinematic Universe. The biggest fault of the film is the fact that it prioritizes setting up ties and connections to the Marvel Cinematic Universe rather than focus on Tony Stark and further exploring his character. While it handles the setup exceptionally well, the film suffers from the overbearing attention to the setup and overabundance of subplots. Now, that's not to say that the film doesn't have great components, which it does, but the bad does unfortunately outweigh the good for the most part. I've drawn attention to really what the film's crux weakness is several times in the preceding sentences and aside from these issues, the remaining elements work quite well. Jon Favreau carries over his directing style from the predecessor and does the best job he can to pull this film together and make it the best it can be. Unfortunately, I believe that the studio restricted Favreau's creative freedoms so that the film would fall in line with Marvel's dreams for a Cinematic Universe. Aside from this, the technical elements are exceptional. The visual effects are very well realized and make the idea of a high tech suit seem somewhat real and look authentic. The action interspersed throughout the film is all entertaining and awesome to watch. One of the key action sequences that stood out to me was the Monaco Grand Prix fight that showcased the Mark V suitcase Iron Man suit, that was very cool to see onscreen albeit the brief screen time. Other key action scenes include the skirmish between Rhodey and Tony in their respective suits, and the third act big battle where we see Iron Man fight side by side with War Machine. Aside from action, the film relies on the very talented cast assembled and the cast delivers their A-game, for the most part. There's no denying it, Robert Downey Jr. is Iron Man. Downey brings fun, quirky charisma to the role that it's very difficult not to enjoy every moment Tony Stark is onscreen, regardless of whether he's wearing the Iron Man suit or not. Don Cheadle fills in the role of Rhodey for Terrence Howard and personally I preferred Cheadle in the role. Cheadle has some great chemistry with Downey giving a great buddy cop vibe from the two. While speaking of Don Cheadle, I feel I should discuss how they progress his character to become War Machine and I think that's one element that was handled quite well. I love the look of the War Machine suit and it's functionality in combat along with the narrative reasoning for Rhodey to don the suit. Gwyneth Paltrow returns to the role of Pepper Potts and has more of a spunky personality this time around. Her scenes with Downey are enjoyable due to the verbal tennis that they play with one another and the two definitely work well together onscreen. Scarlett Johansson is introduced as Natasha Romanov or, the name that many of you are more familiar with, Black Widow. Johansson plays the role with an air of mystery and kicks tons of butt in her action sequence to make her an interesting member of the cast, and I'd equate it to the size of Gal Gadot's role as Wonder Woman in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Other small supporting performances in the film include Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson and both S.H.I.E.L.D. members are certainly quite welcome. In regards to antagonists, Stark finds himself opposed by two villains, Sam Rockwell as a discount Tony Stark, Justin Hammer, and Mickey Rourke as a homicidal Russian, Ivan Vanko. Rockwell is amusing onscreen but feels like he's aiming to replicate Downey's performance as Stark but not as cool. If that's truly what Sam Rockwell was aiming to do, then he does it exceptionally well. Mickey Rourke is a serviceable villain but is quite odd at times and seems to be lacking proper motivation to make Ivan Vanko a truly compelling character. All in all, Iron Man 2 isn't the sequel that Iron Man deserved. The film certainly has it's flaws, but still amounts to be a pleasant viewing experience that establishes a solid foundation for The Avengers.

Film Assessment: B-