New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Iron Man 2

If I was being lazy, I'm not sure I'd even write a description of why this movie is highly anticipated by anyone, let alone me. Frankly, even though I'm not lazy (another New Year's resolution I'm trying on for size), is there anything I can write here that would sway you, if you haven't already been hooked by the first "Iron Man" film, from 2008; or the casting choices of Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, and Scarlett Johannson; or the Comic-Con footage from last summer; or the completely awesome trailer that can be found online or attached to prints of "Sherlock Holmes"? I doubt it. The first film in this series, also directed by Jon Favreau, grossed over $300 million at the box office and kicked off the summer of 2008 with snarky panache. In that film, cocky billionaire (is there another kind?) Tony Stark turns into a modern-day superhero by creating a suit of iron to wear so he can fight off terrorists and other baddies.

The second film, opening on May 7, has Stark face off against another cocky rich guy, Justin Hammer, a Russian scientist who turns himself into the deadly Whiplash, a sexy assistant-cum-spy, and lots of other conflicts that began in "Iron Man". If all goes well, "Iron Man 2" may be able to stand alongside "Spider-Man 2" and "The Dark Knight" as a comic-book sequel that does things right. The star of the film is, of course, Robert Downey, Jr., who continues his comeback tour where it all began. Gwyneth Paltrow returns as his assistant, Pepper Potts. The major casting change is with Stark's friend, James Rhodes, who was played by Terrence Howard in the original, but was replaced here by Don Cheadle, who'll get to don the suit of War Machine, fighting alongside Iron Man. Seriously, if none of that encourages you to buy a ticket, what will? "Iron Man 2" looks to kick off the summer again with that same panache and style.

Toy Story 3

How is it that a film studio is able to produce consistently awesome movies but make its audience cautiously optimistic about future projects? Maybe it's just me, but when you first hear about a movie where a rat tries to be a chef in Paris, or a movie with two lead character who only speak robot, or a movie where an old man lifts his house up on balloons, it doesn't sound like it can work. Of course, "Ratatouille", "WALL-E", and "Up" were all great, and successful. The latter is likely true of Pixar's upcoming film, "Toy Story 3", the follow-up to the 1995 and 1999 classics; however, will "Toy Story 3" be great? I know, people were rightly cautious about the second film, but that one goes alongside "The Empire Strikes Back", "The Godfather, Part II" and a few other sequels as surpassing the original in quality. So why am I so nervous about "Toy Story 3"?

The current trailer only makes me more optimistic, and confident that, as with "Up", the good folks at Pixar are dedicated to making its audience weep by the time the first 15 minutes are through. The film, which comes out on June 18, is about how Woody, Buzz Lightyear, and all of Andy's favorite toys deal with being sent to a day care center after Andy goes to college. Leaving Andy and the house behind seems to be where a lot of the initial teary emotion will lie; once the toys get to the day care center, it seems like being left in Andy's basement to slowly rot for years is a better future than being manhandled by toddlers. The original cast is back, though Slinky the dog is being voiced by Blake Clark, not Jim Varney, who passed away some time ago. New cast members include Michael Keaton (as a Ken doll), Timothy Dalton, Ned Beatty, Bonnie Hunt, and Whoopi Goldberg. As with the other films on this list, the hook is simple: a Pixar movie, and a "Toy Story" movie. I'm there.

Continued:       1       2       3