Flight

I'm a huge fan of Robert Zemeckis, or, at least I was until he started doing all of the 3D animation work in the 2000's. I've never cared for that type of animation, and the stories were all kid's tales, so my love affair with Zemeckis took a hiatus. I still left a light on for the man, mind you. How can you not, when you're talking about the man who made the movie that got you interested in making movies? (Forest Gump, for those who haven't read it here before). I'm glad I did leave that candle burning, because he finally came back from the dark side, so to speak, with Flight, his first live action film in close to a decade.

Flight tells the story of commercial airline pilot Whip Whitaker, an alcoholic, drug using, out of control divorcee. In fact, we meet Whip in the opening scene of Flight in a dirty hotel room, a naked woman at his side, empty beer and liquor bottles everywhere, as well as drug paraphernalia. Whip goes from this, to flying a plane in a matter of a few hours, a job which he is OBVIOUSLY not in good enough physical or mental shape to take on. The plane takes a dive, and Whip, somehow, manages to crash land it successfully, with a very minimal loss of life. He's praised as a hero, until the evidence starts stacking up against him.

Flight isn't perfect, but I enjoyed it immensely, and, for a director who hasn't been in the live action arena for a long time, I thought Zemeckis's come back was as much as I could have hoped for. The cinematography didn't feel as clean as most Zemeckis films do, but I liked it a lot. Washington is always great when he's put into a great role, and Don Cheadle was awesome, as well, as Whitaker's lawyer. My only two complaints would be the subplot where Whitaker falls in love with a recovering junkie he meets in the hospital, which feels like it was never taken to its necessary conclusion, and, really, could have just been stripped away completely, and John Goodman's drug dealer character. I love John Goodman, don't get me wrong, but this dude just seemed way to over the top, especially for his age. His flamboyance just came off as fake to me.

Two very minor things, though, in a comeback film that leaves me wanting a lot more from a filmmaker that I can't seem to get enough of.

Iron Man 2

Comic book films. For so long they were done so poorly, people began to shut them out completely. Remember David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury? How about the Joel Schumacher directed Batman's? Or even, and I know I'll catch flak for this, the Tim Burton directed Batman's? Recently, ever since Christopher Nolan's exceptional reboot of the Batman series, and even Bryan Singer's X-Men movies (Singer, not Rattner), comic book movies have started to get better. They are more interesting, more realistic, and feel more relevant than ever before. Iron Man was a successor to the groundwork that Nolan laid down in Batman Begins, and director Jon Favreau took all of those cues to build the film into something enjoyable on almost every level. Iron Man 2, however, is a different story.

We are back with Tony Stark and company for the follow up, and this time Tony has, effectively, shut down war, seemingly, single handedly. In fact, he goes so far as to boast this during a senate trial that comprises much of the opening part of the film. We are also introduced, in the opening, to a character, Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke), who is obviously after Stark and is building his own version of the miniature reactor core that Stark is using to power the Iron Man suit, and to keep himself alive. Vanko succeeds in this, and meets Stark in Monaco, where he uses the core's energy to try and kill Stark. Unsuccessful at doing so, Vanko is captured and imprisoned, but not without catching the notice of Stark's direct competitor, Justin Hammer (played by Sam Rockwell). Hammer breaks Vanko out of prison, and throws endless amounts of money at him to build a knockoff of the Iron Man suit that Hammer can sell to the US government (since Stark is refusing to hand over his suit), but Vanko has his own plans.

Iron Man 2 is not a complete failure. It manages, at times, to entertain, but one has to wonder if Favreau really intended for the film to be as dull as it was, or if the studios tied one arm behind his back in order to try and make the film that they thought audiences wanted to see. Pretty much everyone in this film, even Robert Downey Jr., is criminally underused. Favreau seems to bring Stark back as the unapologetic, full of himself millionaire playboy, with only a tinge of the maturity we saw developing in the first film. Paltrow, as Pepper Potts, Cheadle as Rhodes, Rourke as Vanko, ALL of these people had parts that had potential for something greater than was up there on the screen. Scarlett Johansson's character, especially, felt tacked on, as if she was almost an after thought for Favreau and company.

The film failed because, unlike the first one, it was more about action and explosions than it was about character development. I'm honestly surprised they didn't throw in some boobs, just to round out all of the cliche's, but, they were gunning for the PG-13. Iron Man 2, while not the WORST it could be, is still, in my mind, one of the biggest let down's in the category of sequels to great first films. Favreau, I hope that we can blame the studio's on this one, and not you. And, if that's the case, I hope we see a director's cut that is everything many of us wanted out of this film in the first place.

Traitor

Don Cheadle has been kicking some butt and taking some names lately in the world of filmmaking. Not only has he been a solid part of Soderbergh's Ocean's films, but with roles in films like Talk To Me, Hotel Rwanda, and Crash, and having produced the documentary Darfur Now, Cheadle has been cementing his place, over the last few years, as one of the better, and more thought provoking, actors in Hollywood right now.

With the film Traitor, Cheadle manages to bring home a great performance as an explosives expert who's playing a lot of sides. Cheadle plays Samir Horn, a man who, as a boy, watched his Muslim father be killed in a car bombing. After that, he left the middle east to go live with his mother in Chicago, and upon coming of age, joined the US Army and became a bomb expert, only to drop off the radar and be suspected of selling explosives to terrorists. After being caught in an anti-terrorism raid, Samir is rescued from prison when he befriends a terrorist named Omar. After Omar and Samir escape, Omar invites Samir to join his group, and the two soon begin plotting bombing missions. Samir, though, unbeknownst to ANYONE, is still working for an operative in US Security named Carter (played by Jeff Daniels). 

I love the fact that the filmmakers don't bother trying to make this a "is he/isn't he?" film. For a little while, you think Samir is one thing, then you realize he isn't, but the thing that keeps you interested in the film is the question - How is it all going to play out? Jeffrey Nachmanoff, who's never done anything else I've ever heard of, does a great job in getting you interested in the well being of Samir. Instead of having the film hinge on which side Samir is playing for, it becomes a question of will Samir make it out alive? He keeps building his house of cards higher and higher, and you know, eventually, something's going to give. 

Cheadle's performance in the film is top-notch (not that I would expect anything less from him), and Saiid Taghmaoui (who plays Omar) digs into one of his best roles as well (though I will say that it is getting disappointing to always see him in the role of the Middle Eastern guy, whether it be terrorist or whatever. It just seems like every role I've seen him in, he plays the same type of character). Guy Pearce was a bit of a surprise, I didn't even realize he was in the film, but his straight talking southern baptist FBI agent gave an interesting contrast to Samir's faith and loyalty, while showing that we are all not as different as we thought.