Not having seen the first Iron Man (what?! Yes, shoot me), I wasn’t able to compare and contrast the two films and see whether or not this was as worthy or better than the first.  I’m sure the fanboys out there will write up their dissertations regardless.  I, for one, enjoyed it nonetheless.

It’s a simple plot, really.  Stark’s a genius playboy-arms-dealer-turned-super-hero who has a weapon the U.S. government wants.  But, he doesn’t want to give; giving the Iron Man suit to the U.S. government would be akin to giving himself to the U.S. Government.  It would be either endentured servitude or slavery, as he says.  Whatever.  He’s not having it.  At the same time, his competition, Justin Hammer (Rockwell), is trying to win over the government with his less-than-stellar (and non-working) robot suits. 

Then along comes the new baddy; Ivan Vanko (Rourke), AKA Whiplash.  A Russian physicist with a past, he sets out to take down Stark.  When he fails, he is recruited by Hammer to not only finish the job, but to get the U.S. contract he so desparately wants.

Iron Man 2 is, without a doubt, a fun film.  It has the action and excitement for the kiddies and Scarlett Johansson for the rest of us.  Okay, so the excitement can be enjoyed by all.  I have to commend Mr. Favreau for being able to deliver; it’s a superhero delight.  Robert Downey Jr. was born for this role.  He owns it.  His attitude, timing and delivery are so spot on.  And what film isn’t better without Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury)?  It’s fun, fun, fun. 

It seems, after conferring with my comic book-reading friends, Iron Man 2 is something of a set up for things to come (*cough* Avengers 2012 Josh Whedon *cough*).  The clues were everywhere (I only caught a few).  And, you didn’t hear it from me, but you should stay until the very end.. I mean, the end of the credits.  There is a huge clue that will get the fans a talking. 

So, stop by the multiplex with your BFF, grab a soda and some popcorn and stap yourself in to a decent ride.  It’s a sequel, folks, and a good one at that.

ZACK SNYDER

(213): So Watchmen – The Director’s Cut.  How does it differ from the theatrical version?

Zack Snyder: I think the director’s cut for me was just…look I understood that a three hour and ten minute movie was the deal.  I was briefly under the illusion that that might sail – very briefly!  I was like, ‘Yeah, it’s awesome!’  And the studio was like, ‘Are you high?  What are you doing over there in the editing room – smoking dope?’  So I understood we were gonna have to make it short.  It’s not like they were twisting my arm or putting a gun to my head.  People are always going what are the deleted scenes, but I don’t really look at it like that – this is the movie.  Unfortunately I made a movie that in order to show in the theater I had to re-do it so it could be shown (laughs) – that’s the difference.

(213): Billy Crudup’s naked state – was that something that was ever a problem with the studio or financiers?  Did they ever object?

ZS: They did!  They said, ‘What are you doing – this man is naked!  And he’s expensive!’ (Laughs)  They were spending a lot of money making a naked guy.  The one thing I would say is that they were really supportive because they knew they were gonna cut these big Manhattan scenes and they finished it anyway which is really cool.  Because they twisted my arm a little bit like we’ll finish your crazy movie if you help us get it cut and into IMAX.  I think ever since DVD’s really came the idea of a Director’s Cut has become a thing that’s sort of universally accepted.  Almost every movie has a Director’s Cut now like the Director’s Cut of…

(213): Legally Blonde?!

ZS: (Laughs)  Yeah!  That’s the difference – this movie really is.  And I think the experience of seeing it you know!  And even seeing Peter’s Lord of the Rings movies, they’re awesome, but the Director’s Cut of those movies are the extended versions.  Those movies are cool with the extra footage, but they don’t make you go, ‘Of course, I didn’t know Frodo…’ – you’re clear on what’s happening.  But when we finished this it was like that’s the movie.

(213): Can we expect a cool and candid commentary track?

ZS: Definitely.  And also I’m not afraid.  I guess some filmmakers are afraid to reveal their tricks – it’s a movie for God’s sakes!  It’s not a magic trick – it’s a movie!  If I really want to I could just go to the visual effects house that made the movie!  So I’m very candid about how we did it because I think that’s cool stuff to know.

(213): How much did the success of 300 contribute to you getting Watchmen and making it your way?

ZS: Oh, one hundred percent.  Without 300 there is no Watchmen.  There’s no Watchmen like this.  The Watchmen movie that gets made without 300 is a completely PG-13 two hour movie for sure.  I don’t know what that is, but it would be a superhero movie – that’s what you would have gotten for sure.

(213): You’re essentially playing Lori’s mom in the film – did you ever meet her? 

SB: No I didn’t – she wasn’t there when we were shooting. She was there at a screening I was at, but I didn’t see her. 

(213): Would meeting her have changed your interpretation of the character at all? 

SB: It might have because she’s a very different women now. She’s a successful businesswoman and has been. So I didn’t want to smarten her up. I’m afraid if I would have seen her in that way I would have added elements of that and this is a woman that’s really messed up. 

(213): With such a diverse body of work, from The Poker House to Storytelling to even Hellboy, is there anything specific you look for when choosing a project to work on? 

SB: No, I’m just all over the place. Sometimes it’s the director, sometimes there’s like two words in that script where I’m like I wanna say those words! The whole rest of the script might be hogwash, but your like I get one scene where I get to do this so it’s gonna be fun. 

(213): As far as Liz Sherman in Hellboy goes, is it odd for you going into a store and seeing a doll of yourself? 

SB: I love it – I just love it! I have no shame! (Laughs) Everyone else is like “Oh, it’s weird!’ and I’m like, ‘No way – it’s not weird!’ I wish I could give it to all my friends. I love it – she’s so petite and she looked taller! 

(213): Did you feel there were things on Hellboy 2 that you incorporated from the first film but never got a chance to do? 

SB: It was really tricky on Hellboy 2 because it was a completely different character. In Hellboy one she was so damaged and had all this baggage – she was like a twelve year old. It was a very sweet awkward kind of gothic weird thing and then in the second one she was a woman and it was important and that was difficult. It was a very different character. 

(213): I have to ask – since Todd Solondz is so secretive about his process as a director, could you talk about working with him on Storytelling? 

SB: I love Todd. Forever I will consider him to be one of my dearest friends even though we don’t speak very much right now. He is a very private man and a very special man and I think he says what he wants through his work. His writing is so succinct, his things are so darkly comedic and I find to be very true. He’s very specific and it was such a perfect and controlled environment – I’ve never loved being on a set as much as I did on Todd’s.

Red Riding – 1974
An aspect of the story where an inquisitive reporter decides to explore more about the killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper and gets way more then he bargains for. Problem is here the more is a ton of subplot material about dirty cops and political red tape and not much about the killer or crimes themselves. Andrew Garfield, so brilliant in Boy A, plays the curious journalist with a ton of charisma, but just can’t elevate the bogged down material. Director Julian Jarrold has a not so delicate touch and the film suffers as a result – to much to handle.

Red Riding – 1980
The most curious of the three starts of interestingly enough with a hard-nosed detective (a very solid Paddy Considine!) being assigned to look into the killings and gets results. But with corruption abound and some serious skeletons in his closet, the focused cop finds the task a tad difficult. This one has a terrific premise that gets way too bogged down in the minutia of the hunter instead of the details of the hunted. Helmer James Marsh focuses way too much on an overall conspiracy between underworld figures and not enough on the task at hand – finding the killer should have been key.

Red Riding – 1983
Easily the best of the three not only for style ala Anand Tucker, but also for actually delving into the actual subject – the Yorkshire Ripper. Mark Addy comes in as a lawyer that ends up stumbling on the facts that may lead him to the culprit and David Morrissey finally comes into his own here as a dirty cop with a nagging conscience. Unfortunately this one cannot be wholeheartedly recommended, as there are details from the first two films that are key to full understanding, but it’s a solid effort – 1983 really was a good year.

Gibson stars as homicide detective Thomas Craven, an aging father who doesn’t have much to live for. The one thing he does love and is trying to re-connect with is his beautiful daughter Emma, who decides to come home and spend some time with the old man. Though soon after she arrives she is gunned down by a masked man and left for dead. Craven breaks down, goes into severe depression and even psychosis as he begins to see his dead daughter to boot. To escape the reality of it all he channels all his anger, rage and focus into finding the folks responsible and stops at nothing to get the truth.

There are some decent twists and turns in a story where nothing is what it seems, but frankly Edge of Darkness feels like a series crammed into two hours. I was actually not surprised to read after that the film was based on an old BBC show (which I unfortunately haven’t seen!), as there is just too much too soon. From the quick killing of beloved daughter Emma (no character development between father and kin here!) to the uneven pacing within (is this a detective story or an action flick?!), Director Martin Campbell makes this cinematic sandwich so full the audience can’t eat it, let alone savor any one flavor. As far as acting goes, Gibson’s performance doesn’t feel all that fresh (check out the Director’s Cut of Payback for the peak of his powers!) and as a mysterious figure in the mix Ray Winstone isn’t all that memorable either.

I’m all for a revenge outing and deep drama that hinges on great character development and a slow simmering pace, but this flick doesn’t have a lot of anything. Sometimes a story can be told in one sitting and sometimes it can’t – this one falls of the edge into the darkness known as biting off more then you can chew.