Jonah Hex (2010)

There's more to comic books than just superheroes. While tales of cape-wearing crimefighters may be the medium's dominant genre, there's also horror, fantasy, romance, and science fiction to be found at your local comic shop.

And though they are nowhere near as prevalent as they may have been decades ago, Western comics are still around. Among the rare Western characters still in publication is Jonah Hex, a horribly scarred bounty hunter and antihero who has been floating around the DC Comics universe since the '70s.

The creation of writer John Albano and artist Tony DeZuniga, Jonah debuted in 1972, in the tenth issue of what would become Weird Western Comics. He's been around in some form or fashion ever since, but outside of a few appearances in various DC animated projects, the character's media penetration has been practically nil... until recently. Of the multitude of characters in DC's pantheon, Jonah was tapped to star in his own movie. And you know what? He probably should have stayed in comics.

Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin) was a soldier in the Confederate army, but was labeled a traitor after going against the orders of his commanding officer, Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich), to save a hospital full of innocent people. Turnbull's son is killed in the process, and swearing revenge, Turnbull murders Jonah's family before scarring his face with a branding iron. Found near death days later by a tribe of Native American mystics, he is nursed back to health but left with the ability to communicate with the dead.

Jonah pursued Turnbull for several years, but gave up after hearing Turnbull had perished in a hotel fire. Since then, he has establishing himself as an unrivaled bounty hunter. However, he may have a second chance at having his own modicum of vengeance. Turnbull turns up alive and well, having robbed a train of a powerful weapon with which he intends to overthrow the government. Once word gets back to Jonah that Turnbull is alive, he readies himself to settle their feud once and for all.

Jonah Hex is a movie that could have been so much better. But instead of the potentially awesome ultra-violent Western tale of revenge that it could have been, we're stuck with some mediocre mess of a movie that feels sloppy and unfinished. It's just a mishmash of scenes with not much of anything to connect them. It's sad, really.

In the director's chair is Jimmy Hayward, whose only prior directorial experience prior to Jonah Hex was the animated adaptation of Dr. Seuss's Horton Hears A Who. His work isn't too awfully bad, but it would have been better had the movie didn't seem like it was taken out of his hands during editing. The editing is choppy in more than a few places, and I got the impression that a lot of stuff was chopped out to get a PG-13 rating. (The fact that the movie is barely 80 minutes long, including the end credits, says something.)

The editing makes the movie move along way too fast, which has the side effect of making it hard for anything in the movie to sink in. I'd actually forgotten half of the movie as soon as the credits began rolling. At least it never gets boring, and features some great music by John Powell and thrash metal band Mastodon. Those are plusses, at least.

As far as the script goes, it's nothing short of ludicrous. Written by Crank writer/directors Mark Neveldine and Bryan Taylor, the script is practically all over the place. There are more than a few scenes that have no real bearing on what little plot there actually is. I mean, what was that scene where Jonah coughs up a bird about? And that scene where Jonah and Turnbull are fighting in some kind of dream world of red sand? Is it too much for the movies I watch to make sense?

Last on my list is the acting, which ranges from "not bad" to "forgettable." In the lead role, Josh Brolin is fun and engaging. He growls his way through the movie, channeling his inner badass while delivering his one-liners with conviction.

However, he runs the risk of being upstaged by our villain du jour, John Malkovich. Malkovich is one of those actors you can count on to play a great bad guy, and his appearance in Jonah Hex further shows that. He's a heck of a lot of fun, and the role couldn't have been played any better.

Rounding out the primary members of the cast is Megan Fox, who plays a hooker who's taken a liking to Jonah. The advertising makes her out to be a major part of the movie, but the truth is that she only has about ten or fifteen minutes of screen time. Both Fox and her character are utterly useless here, and the movie would have been better off had both been eliminated. And let's face facts: Fox is just a crappy actress, period.

I've often wondered why Marvel Comics could crank out two or three movies a year, while DC just trotted out Batman every so often. I'd think, "Why can't DC start making movies based on their other properties?" Well, be careful what you wish for, because you may just get it. It thankfully isn't as bad as Steel or Catwoman, but Jonah Hex is a real disappointment. The concept of the Jonah Hex character could make for a truly awesome movie, but what happened? Who can I blame for screwing the movie up? Do I blame the writers? The director? The studio? Sigh... maybe DC should just stick with Batman after all.

Final Rating: **

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

There's a rule in Hollywood: if it makes money, keep doing it. This can sometimes be interpreted as doing movies that copy the style of a successful movie, such as the glut of horror remakes we've seen over the last few years. But more often than not, that rule means sequels. And if the sequels make money, you do more sequels. Such was the case with Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Inspired by the popular Disneyland ride, it was one of four attempts by the Walt Disney Company to make movies based upon their theme park attractions, and the only one to have any substantial commercial or critical success.

Truth be told, it was a massive hit, and got five Oscar nominations to boot. So naturally, Disney wanted to follow up on it. But instead of just one sequel, Disney ordered two, to be filmed concurrently and released in consecutive summers. The first sequel, Dead Man's Chest, had a mixed reception from critics, but ended up becoming the third movie to gross over one billion dollars at the worldwide box office. The third chapter of the Pirates trilogy, titled At World's End, had some pretty big footsteps to follow in. But did it manage to live up to its two predecessors?

Following the events of Dead Man's Chest, the status quo has drastically shifted. Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), the chairman of the East India Trading Company, has been granted an unprecedented level of power. He has declared martial law over the Caribbean, arresting and executing any man, woman, or child even remotely associated with piracy without a trial. And since he is now in possession of the dead man's chest, Beckett has turned Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) into a slave, forcing Jones and the Flying Dutchman to destroy any pirate ship they encounter.

With no other options, the nine pirate lords must come from every corner of the globe to assemble for a rare meeting of the Brethren Court. But there's one catch: one of the pirate lords, Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), was condemned to the mythical realm known as "Davy Jones's Locker" after his duel with the Kraken at the end of the previous movie. Because he failed to name a successor, the Brethren Court cannot meet without him.

And thus, Jack's closest acquaintances — Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth Swann (Geoffrey Rush), the newly-resurrected Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), and voodoo priestess Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris) — must travel to the end of the earth to retrieve him. They are successful in returning Jack to the land of the living, and although there is no trust to be found amongst the pirates, they must come together if they hope to defeat Davy Jones and the East India Trading Company.

There's an ever-growing belief that a "three-quel" will probably end up being a disappointment. Just look up any third movie in a trilogy, and you'll probably hear stories of people complaining about it. But there is a little bit of truth to that belief, because Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is most assuredly the least of the trilogy. It's a convoluted, disjointed mess that runs completely off the rails at roughly the same time the opening credits have concluded. It goes on way too long and is just too hard to follow for me to actually defend it.

Once again at the helm is Gore Verbinski, whose direction is visually astounding. Unfortunately, Verbinski also allows the movie to become boring. There's way too much going on and so little of it is actually interesting. And considering that the movie is a few minutes short of three hours long, that makes the movie practically unbearable. It's just so plodding and tedious that watching At World's End feels more like a chore than anything. Here's the occasional bright spot, but they're sadly few and far between. Perhaps if Verbinski had been willing to trim about thirty minutes of fat, the movie would have worked a little better.

Then again, that wouldn't have helped the script much. Written by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, the screenplay is bloated, clunky, and full of too many subplots that ultimately make no contributions to the movie. In watching At World's End, I got the feeling that Elliott and Rossio were trying to cram as much as they could into the movie, just in case Disney decided not to make a fourth one. But all it does is make At World's End a jumbled-up mess.

Not even the cast can truly save At World's End. Perhaps the worst offenders are Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly, who I thought were unappealing. It didn't help that I felt Bloom and Knightly's characters were being shoved down my throat, which led me to resent both the characters and the actors. I've heard that Bloom and Knightly won't be appearing in the fourth Pirates movie next summer, which I'm okay with. It's not like anyone is seeing the Pirates movies for them, anyway.

The truth is that everyone is watching them for Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. He's the best part of the first two movies, and At World's End is no exception. Depp is fabulous, with his charm and charisma making him more likable with each scene. I don't know why they even needed any characters or actors beyond Depp. At World's End may be a disappointment, but he most certainly is not.

The remainder of the cast is mixed bag. Tom Hollander and Bill Nighy are great villains, while Chow Yun-Fat does a fine job with his limited screen time. Everyone else is just kinda there, with the exception of Geoffrey Rush. Rush is awesome, playing a perfect foil for Depp. If I could make my own Pirates of the Caribbean movie, the whole thing would be nothing but Depp and Rush chewing the scenery and being awesome.

Sadly, "awesome" is not a word I would use to describe Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. "Mediocre" is more like it. It's not outright bad or anything, but it's nowhere near as good as it could have been. The movie is simply two hours and 49 minutes of wasted potential. And on my usual scale, At World's End gets two and a half stars. Hopefully, the fourth one will try improving upon this one's flaws.

Final Rating: **½

Resident Evil: Degeneration (2008)

Three times now, I've spoken at length about the movie adaptations of Capcom's Resident Evil series of video games. And I stand by my belief that at this point, they've become vehicles that Paul W.S. Anderson uses to make Milla Jovovich look like the biggest badass possible. They're unbelievably mediocre attempts at this, but they're attempts nonetheless. And that's a real shame, too, because the movies are an incredible disservice to the games themselves. Outside of a tiny handful of characters and a few small elements, Anderson's movies have practically nothing whatsoever to do with the games.

But believe it or not, there actually is a Resident Evil movie that remains faithful to the source material. Commissioned by Capcom and released by Sony Home Entertainment, Resident Evil: Degeneration was a CG-animated flick intended to serve as something of an bridge between Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5 that could easily be fitted into the continuity of the games themselves. And even though it could have been better, it'll surely please most fans of the game franchise.

In 1998, the town of Raccoon City was decimated by a biological weapon known as the T-Virus. The effects of the T-Virus were devastating, turning those it infected into flesh-hungry zombies. To stop the outbreak and prevent its outward spread, the government was forced to launch a missile at Raccoon City and effectively wipe the town off the map. Only a handful of people were able to make it out alive, among them Claire Redfield (Alyson Court) and Leon Kennedy (Paul Mercier).

Seven years have passed since the Raccoon City disaster. In that time, Claire has joined TerraSave, a group that handles search and rescue operations following attacks using biological and chemical weapons. She arrives at an airport to meet a friend, but soon finds herself in the middle of a T-Virus outbreak.

The airport is quickly quarantined, leaving Claire trapped inside with a small group of survivors. As part of the lockdown, the military sends in Leon — now a government agent — and Special Response Team members Greg Glenn (Steven Blum) and Angela Miller (Laura Bailey). The three-person team enters the airport and fights their way through an army of zombies and monsters to locate the survivors, eventually escaping with them in tow.

At a debriefing, Leon discovers that a terrorist group is responsible for the outbreak at the airport, having obtained the T-Virus on the black market. This group's goal is to force the American government to admit their rumored connections to the T-Virus's development. As the movie progresses, dark secrets are brought to light as the source of the terrorist group is revealed, and the threat of a greater viral outbreak looms on the horizon.

In watching Resident Evil: Degeneration, I had something of a realization. People are always criticizing video game movies for straying too far from their source material. I've done my fair share of it in the past. But I realized that staying too close to those roots can be hazardous as well.

That's my biggest complaint about the movie. It's a direct translation of the game's world. The animation makes it look like a 96-minute cutscene from the games, some of the franchise's voice actors reprise their roles in the movie, and it's even introduces certain elements that would be referenced in Resident Evil 5. But while those are positives in a sense, they're also negatives. Because of how close the movie is to the games, it risks alienating potential viewers who are not avid followers of the Resident Evil saga. They won't know the characters or the backstory, and if they have to do homework in order to understand the movie, they probably won't watch it at all.

One of my other gripes is the quality of the animation. I'd be a fool to expect Pixar-quality CGI, but am I wrong for wanting more from the movie? Yeah, it's good, but it doesn't feel like it belongs in a movie. It looks like it belongs in a game, so much so that I was hoping that I could actually just start controlling the characters in the movie instead of just watching them.

The animation looks enough like the games that I felt like I was just watching someone play a Resident Evil game instead of playing it myself. It actually put me in the mood to turn the movie off and go play one of the games instead. It's just sad, really.

There's also the screenplay, credited to Shotaro Suga. Once again showing how close the movie is to the games, the screenplay is full of corny dialogue, precious little character development, and a convoluted plot that isn't really all that necessary. You tend to ignore flaws like that when you're playing the games, but the lack of interactivity makes them more evident and annoying.

Last on my list is the voice acting, which is okay, I guess. It's not great, but it's acceptable. (It doesn't help them that the dialogue is so clunky, though.) The voice actors get a bit hammy at times, almost to the point of being laughable, but as a fan of the game series, I can't say I didn't see that coming.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on the movie. It isn't really as bad as I may have made it out to be. In fact, it's a lot of fun. But you come away from it with a feeling of mediocrity. However, I would still recommend it to anyone who calls themselves a fan of the Resident Evil saga. Unfortunately, I don't think I can justify giving Resident Evil: Degeneration anything more than two and a half stars. And at least the movie didn't feature any of those frustratingly complex puzzles from the games. That would have been too much.

Final Rating: **½

Hobgoblins (1988)

One of my favorite movies during my youth was Gremlins. I didn't get to see it until the first part of the '90s, which means I was lucky to have missed the period when filmmakers were cranking out Gremlins knockoffs. I can forgive Critters and Ghoulies, because they supposedly started development before Gremlins went into production. But then there are still other, lesser-known knockoffs. They're all rather obscure and will more than likely stay that way. I mean, have you ever heard of the movie Munchies? No, you probably haven't.

I'll confess that I haven't seen most of the movies that have been accused of trying to cash in on the success of Gremlins. I've actually seen only one, and it was more than enough. I envy those of you who have not seen the movie to which I am referring, because you have yet to experience the pure horror that each frame contains. It is a movie so utterly dreadful, so abysmally bad that its mere existence seems almost as if it were the result of a cruel joke played by the gods of cinema. There are bad movies, there are terrible movies... and then there's Hobgoblins.

As the movie begins, we're introduced to a wimpy young man named Kevin (Tom Bartlett), who has just started a new job as a night watchman at an old movie studio. The only thing really asked of him by his boss, the elderly Mr. McCreedy (Jeffrey Culver), is that he absolutely avoid one particular vault at all costs.

But the thing about Hobgoblins is that the characters are all complete morons. While chasing a burglar through the studio, Kevin opens the vault to search for him. This was probably the worst decision he could have made, as opening the vault releases a group of malicious creatures.

Called "hobgoblins" by Mr. McCreedy, the creatures are aliens that he'd kept trapped inside the vault for the past thirty years. I have no idea how he managed to succeed in doing so, considering that every time we see the vault door, it's unlocked and free for anyone to open. But anyway, letting them out is a pretty big deal, as they have the ability to make a person experience their greatest fantasy before ultimately killing them.

Kevin starts hunting for the hobgoblins, and finds that they've gone after his friends: Amy (Paige Sullivan), his uptight, prudish girlfriend; phone sex addict Kyle (Steven Boggs); the ultra-slutty Daphne (Kelley Palmer); and Daphne's soldier boyfriend, Nick (Billy Frank). With the hobgoblins on the loose, it is up to this quintet of losers to save the day.

Hobgoblins is one of those movies that nobody would have known existed if it hadn't been for Mystery Science Theater 3000. But when the MST3K crew mocked it on their show in 1998, the movie was exposed to an audience who could see it for what it is: one of the most terrible movies ever made. It is a complete and utter failure on every level. Everything about it is pathetic.

This sad pile of crap was written, produced, and directed by Rick Sloane, so if seeing Hobgoblins has caused you any deep psychological trauma, he's the guy to blame. In watching Hobgoblins, it was readily apparent to me that Sloane had no idea how to make a movie that didn't suck. His direction is lackluster to the point of feeling amateurish, with nothing that would build tension or be visually appealing. The whole thing is just one big chore to watch.

His writing is even worse than his direction. The dialogue is awful, the plot is full of holes (among the other goofs and bloopers within the movie), and the characters are the most unlikable group of nitwits I've ever seen. It's like Sloane decided to make a movie where every character was Dropo from Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. You just want to jump into the movie and strangle them all. It's so tiresome, so tedious watching them that I'm afraid that it might have broken something in my brain.

But there are two things that make Hobgoblins truly wretched. One is the hobgoblins themselves. Designed by Kenneth J. Hall, the hobgoblins are cheap hand puppets. Very ugly cheap hand puppets, at that. They don't even try to hide it, either, with the lower half of their bodies usually obscured in some way. If you ever watch Hobgoblins, you will laugh at how lame and unconvincing they are.

The other big thing I have against the movie is its unbelievably atrocious cast. I don't believe there is even a mediocre performance among anyone in front of the camera. (I hesitate to call them "actors.") And I don't even think there's any reason to break them down individually like I normally do, because they're all equally terrible. If their characters are annoying and unlikable, their performances are even worse. Watching these people do what they're doing is infuriating because of how unapologetically bad they are.

I will admit that this hasn't been one of my better reviews. If you're reading this and think it feels kinda rushed, it's probably because I want to hurry up and be done with the relentless torture that is Hobgoblins. It is a movie that I must warn you to avoid at all costs. Do not watch it under any circumstances, unless you're lucky enough to have acquired a copy of its MST3K episode. Otherwise, I implore you to never watch this movie. Hobgoblins just may be the destroyer of worlds.

Final Rating: *

Iron Man 2 (2010)

When Paramount Pictures and Marvel Comics teamed up to make a cinematic adaptation of Marvel's Iron Man character two years ago, they pretty much struck gold. It was a huge hit with both readers and non-readers of comic books, and helped establish Robert Downey Jr. as a bankable star after his battles with substance abuse.

And as Iron Man began Marvel's build to a movie based on the Avengers, it was also successful enough to warrant a sequel of its own. With a ton of promotion and marketing behind it, that sequel has now arrived in theaters, and it's my opinion that Iron Man 2 is a worthy follow-up to its predecessor.

Six months have passed billionaire industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) revealed to the world that he is the armored superhero known as "Iron Man." He has put his armor to good use in that time, having negotiated peace among the world's political superpowers. And thanks to both his activities as Iron Man and the success of his "Stark Expo" technology show, Tony's popularity with the general public is at an all-time high.

But all is not well in the world of Tony Stark. The United States Senate is breathing down his neck, demanding he turn over the Iron Man armor for military application. Though Tony casually shrugs them off, things get far worse from there. The palladium used in the "arc reactor" that keeps Tony's heart beating has begun poisoning his body. Unless he can discover a replacement element, it will slowly kill him.

And because bad news always seems to come in threes, a new threat looms on the horizon. While racing in the Monaco Grand Prix, Tony's car is cut in half by Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian inventor with ties to the Stark family who has constructed his own arc reactor and channeled its energy through two whip-like attachments. Tony is able to win the ensuing fight, but Vanko is soon sprung from prison by Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), Tony's unscrupulous business rival. Hammer and Vanko are quick to put their heads together and organize a way to eliminate their common enemy.

When a sequel to a movie as fun as Iron Man is released, you go into it with certain expectations. And while your opinion of it may differ from mine, I got everything I wanted out of Iron Man 2. The action was exciting, the jokes were funny, the effects were top-notch, the soundtrack was pretty darn rockin', and the acting was great. It may not hit the exact same mark the first movie did, but I have no problem calling Iron Man 2 a creative success.

Returning to the helm is Jon Favreau, whose direction is once again excellent. He knows exactly what kind of movie he wants to make, and he does a great job at it. (He also isn't bad in his beefed up role as Tony Stark's bodyguard/chauffeur, Happy Hogan.) Favreau's direction gives the movie so much energy, keeping the excitement and the entertaining as high as he can for as long as he can.

But it is in Favreau's favor that he has a number of elements that he can assemble to make the movie what it is. There's the stellar cinematography by Matthew Libatique, an awesome rock-styled score from composer John Debney (with help from Tom Morello), and the amazing visual effects courtesy of Industrial Light and Magic. All of it gels together to help make Favreau's direction that much better.

Another of the elements Favreau has at his disposal is the screenplay. It's credited to Tropic Thunder writer Justin Theroux, but I wouldn't be surprised if, like in the first movie, Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. did a little script doctoring. (So I don't know that for sure. Let's just take the credits at face value and assume Theroux did all the writing himself, okay?)

I can't say that I have a problem with Theroux's script... except for this one little thing. What I didn't like about it — and the big reason why I felt Iron Man 2 didn't surpass the first movie in terms of quality — is that I got the feeling that there's too much going on. There's the whole thing with Ivan Vanko and Justin Hammer, the subplot with the Senate trying to get the Iron Man armor, the parts with Nick Fury and SHIELD, and Tony's palladium poisoning. Couldn't Theroux have gone with one, maybe two stories and streamlined things?

The first movie was a lot more focused in that regard, and while Iron Man 2 isn't the complete opposite of that, I do think it tries juggling too much at once. There's so much going on that outside of a handful of moments, the action never really hits any sort of stride until the last half hour. The first ninety minutes are far from boring, I'll give it that, but I wanted a little more Iron Man mixed in with all that Tony Stark. Know what I mean?

The absolute best part of Iron Man 2, however, is the same as its predecessor: the cast. The actors and actresses gathered for this movie are all excellent at what's asked of them, even if some are better than others.

Reprising his role as the title character is Robert Downey Jr., who once again completely steals the movie. Some superheroes may mope and be sullen about a perceived negative impact that heroism has on their lives, but Downey's Stark gives them the finger and proudly announces to the world that being a superhero kicks ass.

He's absolutely tremendous in the part, playing Tony as a cocky prick who is still a pretty endearing guy even when you want to strangle him. Downey is so charming and so much fun to watch that I honestly cannot picture the Iron Man movie franchise without him. The combination of arrogance and charisma makes Downey a real blast to watch, and I hope they make a dozen more Iron Man movies so he can keep playing the character.

But while Downey steals the movie, that doesn't mean the supporting cast isn't good as well. They're actually pretty darn great. While the chemistry between she and Downey may not be quite what it was two years ago, Gwyneth Paltrow is still very good. The character of Pepper Potts has a little more meat this time around, giving Paltrow more to work with. She aces it, playing Pepper with the same warmth and charm as before, but with a certain sence of frustration with her boss's recklessness. It's believable and it works.

I must also admit that I enjoyed Don Cheadle in the role of Tony's best friend, Jim "Rhodey" Rhodes. There was a bit of a stink raised over the announcement that Cheadle would be replacing Terrence Howard, but I thought Cheadle did an admirable job. The only flaw I could find with his performance is that he didn't have the same strong, confident presence as Howard did, but that's minor at worst. Cheadle is still worth seeing here, if you ask me.

Among the other newcomers to the franchise is Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff, who comic fans will recognize as the secret agent otherwise known as "Black Widow." Her role seems relatively minor in the grand scheme of the movie, and it feels like she was only here to add sex appeal and introduce Black Widow to the movie continuity (and thus give SHIELD more of a presence in Iron Man 2).

Outside of her fight scenes during the climax, there isn't really a lot for Johansson to do. If all that was expected of her during filming was to stand around and look pretty before kicking the crap out of people, then she knocks that out of the park. As far as the actual acting goes, Johansson isn't too bad at that either.

But what would a superhero movie be without the supervillains? One of the common complaints about the first movie is that there wasn't a very strong villainous presence until the third act. Iron Man 2 remedies that, giving us two villains right from the start.

The first villain is Mickey Rourke, whose performance is exactly what it needs to be. Rourke plays the character as cold, calculating, and unwaveringly determined to bring down Tony Stark's empire. And it may sound hyperbolic, but he's perfect here. You can tell just by looking at him that he means business and will go to any lengths to accomplish his goals.

Rourke's counterbalanced by the movie's other villain, Sam Rockwell. His character is everything Rourke's isn't: cocky, brash, and somewhat ineffectual. If you created an Iron Man 2 drinking game, you could probably make a case for taking a shot every time Justin Hammer is made to look like a fool. Rockwell is fantastic in the role, giving him an arrogance that says he'd be as big as Tony if only Stark Industries were out of the picture.

While I don't think it's as good as its predecessor, Iron Man 2 is two hours of pure entertainment. I won't try to dispute any allegations that it's not much more than a glorified stepping stone towards the Avengers movie in 2012, but whether it is or isn't, it's still one heck of a sequel and one heck of a fun flick. So on my usual scale, I'm going to give Iron Man 2 three and a half stars (leaning towards four) and a recommendation to go check it out if you haven't seen it yet. Now if only they could get someone to invent the Iron Man armor for real so I could take it for a test drive...

Final Rating: ***½