Review: Iron Man 3 (Spoiler Free)

I saw the latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe series, Iron Man 3. I saw the standard version; no 3D or IMAX. I'm going to make an effort not to put in any spoilers here, so pardon my vagueness.

Bottom line, it was terrific.

Robert Downey Jr. was, as always, absolutely pitch-perfect as Iron Man. If every actor has a single role for which they were destined, this is his, as Robert Preston was Professor Harold Hill and Leonard Nimoy was Spock. His performance encapsulates Stark's mixture of cockiness and angst effortlessly. Ben Kingsley is terrific on screen as the Mandarin, who is one of Iron Man's chief foes in the comic books. This is a character for whom hatred of America is an end unto itself, and he really brings it on several levels. Many of the supporting players you're used to are back, and a few faces from the comic books that have been conspicuous in their absence finally have roles to play.

The big question for this film has to be, "What do you do after The Avengers?" Tony Stark has rubbed elbows with Norse Gods, aliens, flown through wormholes, and buddied up with the Hulk's alter ego. Where do you go from there?

Simple, you make it a smaller, more personal movie. You don't try to top it; that won't happen until The Avengers 2 hits screens in 2015 (in a duel to the death with Star Wars Episode VII), and would feel forced. You bring it back to Stark, and explore how he's been able to cope (or not to cope) with the experiences he had in New York. That was a deliberate choice on the part of the studio, and it worked expertly.

That's not to say there isn't peril aplenty, and lots of action, and blowing things up, and of course Tony Stark in the flying suit. The plot is well-conceived and full of excellent twists and turns that will keep you guessing. Suffice to say that one of the themes of this film is that appearances can be deceiving, and there are a number of excellent reversals and twists that you just won't see coming, even if you're looking for them.

As usual with a film like this, there's violence but not a lot of gore. There are sexy girls in bikinis, but no nudity or gratuitous vulgarity. I felt completely comfortable bringing my 12 year old daughter to this film, and she had a blast, as did my wife, who isn't what you'd call a comic book film fan (although she did like The Avengers, she continually ribs me for my love of the X-Men films).

Five stars out of five.

__________

Also, please don't forget the Adventures Dark and Deep Bestiary Kickstarter going on right now! 900 monsters, suitable for most OSR-type games, all under one cover. Can you help get us to having an illustration for each and every one?

Read More

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I got to see the newest release in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth franchise; The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I saw it with some folks from my Adventures Dark and Deep campaign, and we saw the plain-Jane version. No 3D, no 48 fps. Just a regular movie.

I have to say I went into this having read a number of bad reviews and was expecting to be disappointed. I came out having really enjoyed it. It's not a perfect movie, but few are, and I thought it compared very favorably with the Lord of the Rings films, all of which I love. I'm also a fan of Tolkien's written works, and have read both The Hobbit and LotR many, many times, so I'm aware of the variances between the books and the films. (For what it's worth, I'm a fan of the Rankin-Bass animated films, but not the Ralph Bakshi film; I'm not a fan of rotoscope.)

I didn't see the pacing problems that many reviewers complained of, especially in the first half to two-thirds of the movie. I thought it moved along well, didn't find the dwarves' feast at Bag End to be overly long, and it didn't feel at all bloated to me. The music was good, recalling many of the themes from LotR as appropriate, but it never seemed to get in the way. And there were several songs sung in-character which really helped establish a more "fun" tone. I did not find the addition of the Necromancer of Dol Guldur to be overly intrusive (but see below) and actually fits in well with the rest of the film, especially if it's seen in the context of setting up the LotR films.

The trolls were great (nice to see them finally not portrayed as utterly mindless), and I thoroughly enjoyed Goblintown, and thought the visual juxtaposition between it and both Moria and Eriador (the lost kingdom of the dwarves which Thorin and company are attempting to reclaim from the dragon Smaug) was excellent. Where the dwarvish cities feature stone arches, staircases, and flying buttresses that seem that they have and will last for ages, Goblintown has rickety wooden scaffolding.

The scenes with the Great Goblin were very good, too, I thought. Humorous, but not overly so. The Gollum scenes were a highlight; if anything Peter Jackson's team has gotten better at their motion-capture CGI technology, and the scene was written perfectly and quite suspensefully. I noted that Gollum's eyes in certain light reflected as large pale orbs without any pupils, and that was both really creepy and effective. I half expected to hear Brother Theodore's voice when he first spoke.

As I say, it's not a perfect movie, and purists are sure to howl at some of the changes. There's a new sub-plot where an orc chieftain, Azog the Defiler, has a grudge against Thorin and his family (Azog was a very minor character in the larger Tolkien corpus, but never appears in the book version of The Hobbit), and we see a string of fight scenes between Azog's forces and the dwarves. After a while, they became somewhat predictable. And maybe I'm just not getting the chronology, but looping in the attempt to reconquer Moria just didn't make sense to me. Plus it doesn't seem to have any real purpose other than to give an excuse to include a couple more fight scenes. The sweepy-flying camera angles were a bit distracting and annoying, as were the very-fast-choppy cuts in the fight scenes.

And Radigast the Brown, with bird crap trailing in his hair and down his face, I could have done without completely. I am naturally predisposed towards Sylvester McCoy as a Dr. Who fan, but honestly he was goofy for the sake of being goofy and the character didn't really add anything to the story. Any stray woodsman could have conveyed the story of the Necromancer (or, hell, for that matter Bjorn, whom we will presumably see in the next film).

The biggest problem I had was that a good third of the dwarves didn't look very dwarf-like. One expects dwarves to have exaggerated features and prominent beards. Most did, but others just looked like short humans, Thorin unfortunately included. It was distracting.

On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and don't think it dragged at all. I didn't find most of the additions annoying (with the exception of Radigast), but some were obviously for the sake of adding more action (Azog). I would definitely see it again, and am looking forward to taking my daughter (age 11). I reserve judgement as to how it ranks compared to the LotR films until I see the other two in the series, as context is vital. But this is a great fun film. See it and judge it on its own merits, and you'll probably be pleased.

----------

What would Dungeons & Dragons have looked like if Gary Gygax had been allowed to keep developing it? Please, if you haven't done so already, consider supporting my Kickstarter for the Adventures Dark and Deep Players Manual, going on now through December 19th. I need your help to make it a reality!

Read More

13 Days of Halloween: Day Nine

Today, I'd like to bring your attention to some lighter fair; a pair of spooky-yet-lighthearted films that were staples of my youth. Both, not coincidentally, are currently available on Netflix for instant viewing, both featuring Boris Karloff, too.

The first is Mad Monster Party? (the question mark really is part of the title). Remember those stop-motion animated specials that Rankin-Bass did for Christmas and Easter? Rudolph, The Year Without a Santa Claus, Santa Claus is Coming to Town, etc.? Well, many people don't know that they also did a horror-themed one called Mad Monster Party? Basically, take all of the old classic horror monsters; Frankenstein's Monster (as well as his bride-- played by Phyllis Diller!), the Mummy, the Wolfman, Dracula, etc. and throw 'em in together with a schlub pharmacy assistant who doesn't really realize what's going on around him and have a ball.

The second is The Comedy of Terrors, a quirky but very funny comedy/horror film starring Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff, and Basil Rathbone. Price plays a murderous mortician who drums up his own business when times are slow, and the whole thing turns into wonderful farce when one of his victims turns out not to be as dead as Price might want him to be. Mix in a neglected wife with a singing voice that can (literally) shatter glass and there's a lot of good fun here. It's wonderful to see the range that these classic actors have, stretching from horror to slapstick comedy and back again. Well worth watching right after Tales of Terror, which featured much of the same cast just the year before.

Read More

13 Days of Halloween: Day Two

Today I'd like to discuss some of my favorite horror films from the 1970's and 1980's. These were my formative years, and these are the movies that made a huge impression on my young mind. I don't much care for modern horror, which is all too often just torture porn or soggy creepy kids. Here's my top thirteen list from that golden (to me, anyway) era (which is different from last year's list, which was my top ten horror films of all time)...

• The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) / Dr. Phibes Rises Again (1972). I'm counting these two films as one, and this is definitely a gruesome twosome. Vincent Price is the titular Doctor Phibes, who is first murdering the surgical team that allowed his wife to die on the operating table, and then murdering members of an archaeological expedition in Egypt in order to bring his wife back to life. While he, himself, has no face and is able to concoct murderously ingenious deathtraps for his victims. 
• Theater of Blood (1973). Vincent Price is a maniacal actor who is taking revenge on the critics who snubbed him for a prestigious award by killing them in imaginative ways relating to Shakespeare's plays. 
• Black Christmas (1974). Psychopath is killing a bunch of sorority girls alone over Christmas break. Creates a terrific atmosphere of suspense throughout.
• The Omen (1976). You don't need to believe in the Bible to find Damien creepy, especially when the people around him who get to nosy start to die in various... accidents. I actually really like the next two films in the series, too; Omen 4 loses me, though.
• Halloween (1978). This film is all about building tension. Even the most innocuous of scenes is made scary by that terrific music that John Carpenter wrote for the film. It's only in the last half hour or so that the killing really starts, and even then there's not a lot of gore (unlike the later films in the series).
• Alien (1979). This is one of the best horror films ever made, that just happens to be set on a spaceship in the future. The claustrophobic atmosphere is perfect, the alien menacing and shadowy, and the acting is terrific. Yaffet Koto is probably my favorite member of the crew.
• When a Stranger Calls (1979). Yeah, once you know the punchline, it sort of ruins the effect, but you can say the same thing about Psycho. Terrific atmosphere, and Carol Kane (whom I best know as Simka-- Latka's girlfriend from Taxi) was absolutely wonderful as the isolated, vulnerable babysitter. 
• Terror Train (1980). This really was little more than a way to glom onto the slasher-movie boom that Halloween unleashed, and even had Jamie Lee Curtis in pretty much the same role/different name as she had had. But I still find it holds up well; the isolation of the train, the messing with identies enabled by the costumes, and a very unexpected twist at the end all combine to make a very effective slasher movie.
• Motel Hell (1980). Farmer Vincent and his sister are creepy enough, but it turns out they intentionally wreck motorists and bury them up to their necks in the garden, sever their vocal cords so they can't speak, and then break their necks with a tractor before turning them into sausages. Yup, great stuff for a 14 year old.
• An American Werewolf in London (1981). I love this movie because it's so much more than just a werewolf movie. There's ghosts, and zombies, and all sorts of other stuff thrown in there. The special effects are great, and it's one of those generational movies that everybody grew up seeing. 
• A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). Perfect, just perfect. In the first film in the series especially, they really nail the dreamscape; I've actually had that dream where I try to run up the stairs, and my feet sink into them, so I can't move. Wise-cracking Freddy is sinister as one would expect. 
• The Howling (1981). This is my perfect werewolf movie. It starts off as a serial killer film, but then we find out not only that the killer is a werewolf, but he comes from a whole colony of lycanthropes. Patrick Macnee is terrific as the leader/doctor, as you might expect. Very urbane, but with a hint of menace just under the surface.

What? No Friday the 13th? Nope. Didn't do much for me, I'm afraid.

Read More

Review: The Dark Knight Rises (Caution: Spoilers)

Preface: No discussion of The Dark Knight Rises is possible without addressing the horrific mass murder that took place in Aurora, CO on opening night. It should go without saying that my thoughts and sympathies are with the victims and their families, and that while the shooter is obviously mentally ill, there can be no possible justification for such an act. We don't yet know why he did what he did, or why he picked this particular film. That said, life must go on, and we cannot allow ourselves as individuals or as a society to be paralyzed into inaction by the actions of a single sick individual. Don't let the horror of what happened in Colorado keep you from seeing this or any other film. Don't let him win.

----------

CAUTION: Spoiler-heavy review below. Bear in mind that I saw this film directly after watching the first two films in the series, so my impressions were filtered through a more direct comparison with the others than some film goers might have.

Shortest possible version: The Dark Knight Rises was a good film, and a very good Batman film, but it was hardly the best.

This is a very large film, one might even go so far as to say ponderous. Eight years after Harvey Dent's death in The Dark Knight, he has been lionized by the citizens of Gotham and the Batman has been made a scapegoat for Dent's crimes. Bruce Wayne is a recluse, shutting himself off from the world as he wallows in self-pity due to the death of the woman he loved at the hands of the Joker.

Right off the bat, I didn't like that tone. Bruce Wayne has dealt with pain and loss before-- it's the entire motivation behind his assumption of the Batman persona. It seemed very incongruous. Most of the other characters were right on-target.

The plot revolves around Bane, a terrorist mercenary, attempting to complete the work that Ra's Al Ghul failed to do in the first film; destroy Gotham to restore balance. In a very complex plot, Bruce Wayne's fortune is destroyed after the Gotham Stock Exchange is attacked, Roland Daggett's construction company is used to (literally) undermine Gotham city, and an experimental fusion reactor built by Wayne Enterprises gets turned into a nuclear weapon.

In and amongst all this, Selina Kyle/Catwoman (although never called by that name, as far as I remember) alternately hurts and helps Bruce Wayne and Batman, eventually betraying him to Bane, who breaks his back in a one-on-one fight and consigns him to a prison in Uzbekistan where the only escape is to climb out.

Eventually, Bane seizes the city of Gotham not to hold it for ransom but to turn it into an anarchist paradise. Almost all of Gotham's police are trapped underground, and Bane has control of a nuclear weapon that will vaporize the city if anyone tries to flee or if the outside world tries to interfere. Eventually, of course, Bruce Wayne escapes from the prison, and Batman returns to Gotham and stops Bane.

While this film was visually stunning, and the acting was excellent, I found it to be oddly disjointed. While the director seemed to be going for "big", he ends up with "sprawling" instead, and there were a number of plot holes that ultimately distract from the whole:

• Why did Bane take the time to fly Wayne to Uzbekistan from Gotham, right when his plot was coming to fruition?
• How did 3,000 police officers stay trapped underground for five months without a single one escaping? (And how, after all that time, when they finally emerge, are they all clean shaven, their uniforms clean and in fine shape?)
• How did Gotham become completely (and conveniently) isolated on an island? What happened to the "eastern overland routes" that were explicitly mentioned in The Dark Knight when the Joker was setting up his trap on the ferries?
• How did it take five months for the Army to think to send in soldiers with the relief supplies that were being trucked into Gotham? And then when they do arrive, they are pretty well hapless?

And, while it's not a plot hole, I found the fight scenes between Bane and Batman to be... meh. Just back-and-forth roundhouse punches with no real feeling.

Don't take this to mean that I thought the film was terrible-- I don't. Bane was a good villain (although I found the mask an unnecessary contrivance that ultimately added nothing to the plot or character; in the comic books it's part of the delivery system of the Venom that gives him his strength) who effectively coveys a sense of menace, and the scenes where Alfred is trying to convince Wayne to come back to the world were top-notch. They did an admirable job of attempting to tie together the first and third films both thematically and through the story and characters, and there were some excellent plot twists and surprises (although some of them were just groaners-- Robin? Really?).

Some of the foreshadowing-- such as the final scene in the bistro in Italy-- were a bit heavy-handed and could be seen a mile away, but others were done very well.

On the whole, I would place this film between Batman Forever and Batman Begins on my rankings of all the Batman films. I think it's the weakest of the three most recent Batman films, but that still puts it in the top half of all Batman films.

EDIT: Added some pics of costumed fans from the midnight showing at the AMC Rockaway theater, where I saw Dark Knight Rises. 

Read More

Ranking the Batman Films

With the impending release of The Dark Knight Rises tomorrow (I've already got my ticket to see the whole Dark Knight trilogy, starting at 6 PM today, culminating with DKR at midnight tonight), I thought it would be appropriate to throw up my own ranking of the various big screen incarnations of Bruce Wayne and his alter ego.

I will go on record as saying that one does not cast for Batman. One casts for Bruce Wayne. You could put almost anyone into the costume, especially since half the time it's a stunt double anyway. But the scenes where he doesn't have his mask, where it's the pained and vulnerable Bruce Wayne on the screen, is where an actor in the role really gets a chance to prove his mettle (or lack thereof).

So here, from least favorite to most favorite, are my rankings of the films. How do you rank them? Let me know in the comments.

Batman and Robin. I like George Clooney and I like Arnold Schwarzenegger, but this movie was terrible. The campy tone, the crappy dialogue, the costumes, the absolutely terrible batmobile, and the overabundance of villains (and heroes) made this mish-mash just painful to watch. Mr. Freeze singing the Cold Miser song? Poison Ivy imitating Mae West? A totally mindless Bane? Spare me. Joel Schumacher said he didn't want to make a film about guys in tights with capes, and it shows in every frame.

Batman (1966). Although this was the Batman I grew up with as a kid (thanks to the television show that accompanied the movie), once my eyes were opened up to other takes on the character, this one swiftly slid into the bottom tier. Sure, Caesar Romero is a terrific Joker, and Frank Gorshin a terrific Riddler, and Burgis Meredith a terrific Penguin. And all of the Catwomen are... terrific. But that can't make up for the comparison with the later films.

Batman Returns. While I think Michael Keaton is one of the best Bruce Waynes ever cast (see below), I didn't much care for either Danny Devito's Penguin or Michelle Pfeifer's Catwoman (heresy, I know). The fact that the Penguin in the first few seasons of Batman the Animated Series was based on the physical design of this Penguin is something that I wish hadn't been done, but there it is. I suppose it beats a Penguin with a British accent. I was somewhat disappointed that the production design was so obviously the same as that seen in the previous film, with little or no memorable additions, that it felt more like a sequel than most sequels do.

Batman Forever. While I hated Jim Carrey's Riddler, I loved Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face. I thought Val Kilmer was a decent enough Bruce Wayne, and he had a sort of snobbery that was refreshing to see in the character (especially evident in the scene where Carrey's Edward Nygma tries to pressure him to agree to back his project). I'm not too much of  a fan of the bright colors that this film made up of, though. And while the addition of Robin was predictable, it was also unnecessary, making the film feel more crowded than it needed to be.

Batman Begins. The first of the newest Batman series was ground-breaking. It took a much more serious, practical approach to the character and his world. Gone were the fantastic science-fictiony elements, replaced with military hardware and rigorous training that we actually got to see. Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne was genuinely haunted, seeking to lash out at a world that had hurt him so terribly, and he played that character excellently. Michael Caine's Alfred was equally terrific; a sympathetic and solid surrogate father for Bruce Wayne.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. I'm so glad this was released (ever so briefly) in theaters, because it gives me a chance to talk about Kevin Conroy's take on the character. Here, because of the special circumstances surrounding animation, one actually does cast for Batman, because all of the actual acting is done solely through the talents of the actor's voice. and boy, does Conroy nail it. He can switch in an instant from the dark, gravelly, brooding Batman to the cheerful, almost dopey Bruce Wayne. Mark Hamill's Joker is rightly praised both for this film and the various television series that featured him, but Conroy is a superb bit of casting that kept the whole thing together. He is the voice of Batman.

Batman (1989). While it's easy to compare Michael Keaton's Batman to the others that have come since, it must be remembered that when this film came out, the only Batman audiences had ever seen was Adam West (or the various cartoon incarnations, such as Superfriends from the 1970's or the Batman/Superman Hour from the 1960's). At the time, knowing that Tim Burton was going for a darker, more serious tone than anyone had ever really seen from the character in film or television, people thought the casting of Michael Keaton (who at the time was mostly known for his comedic roles such as Night Shift) was a huge mistake. But as soon as the audience saw him hold the mugger off the edge of a rooftop and utter the line "I'm Batman", all doubts were erased. He played Bruce Wayne with a tinge of humor, but there was always a huge pathos in the background, which I found perfectly spot-on. And of course Jack Nicholson's Joker was over the top and absolutely terrific. Even the Prince soundtrack was wonderful (not to mention the Danny Elfman score). In my own mind, it's only a hair's breadth that separates this film from #1, which is...

The Dark Knight. Having established the character so very well with Batman Begins, Christian Bale stayed the course and delivered another outstanding performance as Gotham's millionaire playboy. The film is bigger, broader, and in almost all respects better than its predecessor. Of course it is one again the Joker that steals the show-- in this case by the late Heath Ledger, who won an Oscar posthumously for his performance. But even his Joker is grounded in reality; no esoteric chemicals to cause the famous grin here; his is literally carved into his face, and his trademark white face and green hair are affectations done simply to creep out his victims (and possibly to cause them to under-estimate him). If this film has a weak spot, it's the introduction of Harvey Dent/Two Face. The very end, where Batman takes the rap for Harvey's crimes, seemed a bit contrived, but not enough to knock the film out of its perch as #1. (My original review when it came out is here.)

Tomorrow I should have a review of The Dark Knight Rises up (if I wake up, that is-- I'm going to be in the theater 'til 3 AM tonight!).

Read More

Film Review: Prometheus (Spoiler Free)

Yesterday I had the opportunity to see Ridley Scott's Prometheus; a sorta-kinda prequel to his groundbreaking 1979 film Alien. I saw it without the 3D or Imax, and didn't feel the loss at all. The theater was packed.

Let me just say at the outset that this film was an outstanding success from my point of view. Speaking as an enormous fan of all the Alien films (even including Alien: Resurrection), Prometheus managed to do something I didn't think any film would in the series would be able to; it actually created the same emotional response in me that the original Alien film did. It was completely effective in evoking the sense of dread, anticipation, and if-only-they-knew-they-might-live-through-this angst that I felt when I saw Alien in the theater on a field trip to New York City (interestingly, since we had a few hours to kill before seeing the movie we were there to see-- the German version of Das Boot-- a friend and I took in Alien beforehand).

One piece of advice to you who might be fans of Alien; don't think of this as a "prequel". It is, and it isn't. If you go into this expecting to see face huggers and LV-426, you're going to be disappointed. It's... bigger than that. It doesn't set up Alien, it sets up the entire Alien universe. Go into this looking for broad themes, not specific artifacts.

Some reviewers thought the cast too large (large enough that the majority of the crew are just sort of extras waiting to die; the fact that this movie takes a heavy toll on the cast cannot, in any way, shape, matter, or form, be thought of as a spoiler-- it's setting up Alien, fer chrissakes...), but I thought it worked very well. Michael Fassbender (Magneto from X-Men: First Class) is characteristically brilliant as David, and he's written in such a way that the audience expectations regarding his character are well played upon.

It should go without saying that the visuals are flawless and stunning. They are all that and more. I could have done with a little less CGI and a little more mechanical effects, but I'm just old fashioned.

The music was interesting. There's a great motif that evokes a sense of exploration and wonder. However, it gets played throughout the film, but it's so short and is played so often that sometimes it really doesn't fit; people are dying, and they play the "wonder theme". On the other hand, there were some very nice nods to the musical motifs of the other films.

There were some nice dialog nods, too; not so heavy handed as, say, Star Wars, where the same line gets said three or four times across different movies, but they were definitely there ("we are LEAVING!").

On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and found it a worthy addition to the Alien canon. Leave your expectations and preconceptions behind, and fans of the original should get a real kick out of this film.

Read More

Film Review: The Avengers

With as few spoilers as possible; any spoilers will be hidden through the magic of inviso-text (highlight to read).

The Avengers is probably the most anticipated film of the summer (with all due apologies to Dark Knight Rises and Prometheus). It's going to make an absurd amount of money, and it's garnered something on the order of 85% positive ratings at Rotten Tomatoes. I got to see it on Friday with my family, in 3D (no IMAX).

In a word, it was a great time.

That said, the film is not without its flaws, and I would hesitate to call it (as some have) the best superhero movie of all time.

First the good.

The dialog is absolutely terrific, and it makes the movie. People who bitch and moan about Joss Whedon being some sort of fanboy need to realize that it is precisely his love of the material that make his take on the characters work so well. Tony Stark is flawless with his snappy one-liners, and both Captain America and Thor are completely consistent with their depiction in their respective feature films, as the man-out-of-time boy scout and the former spoiled prince who has finally come into his role as grave and wise heir to the throne of Asgard. Loki is well done as the schemer par excellence, and I found Nick Fury to be well done as the ringmaster (some reviewers found his character lacking, but I thought he was spot-on).

The actors all obviously benefited from this not being their first outing (with the exception of Mark Ruffalo as Dr. Bruce Banner/The Hulk, but he was great in the role nonetheless; its one of those times when you're casting for the mundane alter-ego, and he's great there). I've got to point out, though, that even though Tony Stark had the lion's share of lines, the best line of the film goes to the Hulk. You'll know it when you hear it.

One thing I particularly liked about Whedon's script is that we saw some real growth in the major characters. Once they get past their natural ego-driven antagonisms (which erupt into a long series of fights between various parings of the characters), they all seem to "get it", and it's a sight to behold once the light bulb goes off over their collective heads that they need to set aside their egos and work as a team. Tony Stark's very understated "Call it, Captain" is pure art, borne of a love for, and understanding of, the characters.

The music was workmanlike, I thought, but it certainly didn't detract from the film like, I thought, it did from Thor. The special effects were, as one might expect, spectacular (with one caveat-- see below). The fact that the Hulk actually looks like Mark Ruffalo is absolutely wonderful. And Black Widow is one of the best characters, male or female, to come out of comic book films in a long time. She is not only completely bad-ass when it comes to fighting, but she's got a fiercely manipulative intelligence that shines in her scenes.

Now the bad.

Don't waste your time on the 3D. Seriously. I can remember only 2 shots when the 3D even mattered, and throughout the movie I found a very distracting double-image where a bright light was placed against a dark background (which happened a whole bunch of times, especially, but not exclusively, in the first half of the film). The 3D (and, I might add, the IMAX) was added in post-production. Save yourself the extra $4.

I'm a huge fan of the idea that strong villains make great films. I already pointed out that Tom Hiddleston's Loki was well-written, and he did a great job of bringing him to life, but... the alien Chitauri were absolutely lacking.

The Chitauri, in fact, are the biggest disappointment of the film. They're supposed to be incredibly bad-ass warriors, but their entire strategy seems to consist of shooting up random buildings. And then they all conveniently drop dead when the big ship a billion light years away is destroyed? It seemed very contrived. Moving up the ship's destruction a bit in the final climactic battle, and then showing some scenes of mopping up would have made a lot more sense to me.

I must say that while I understand the purpose of the parade of Avenger-on-Avenger fight scenes, they got a bit tiresome after a while. Stark vs. Thor, Thor vs. Captain America, Black Widow vs. Hulk, etc. etc. etc. It was like reading through the entire run of Marvel's What If? comics. It got old, but only at the very end.

On the whole, I really, really liked this movie. It's a fitting capstone to the recent series of Marvel superhero films, starting with Iron Man, and it really set up some interesting things both in terms of plot and character for the heroes in their inevitable follow-up movies. I only hope they can maintain this level of quality. Although I've got to say a cameo by Spider Man would have made this movie. Yeah, I know why it couldn't happen, but a geek can dream.

But as far as this being the best superhero movie of all time? I'm afraid I must still award that particular laurel to X-Men: First Class. because Shaw and Magneto are so effective as villains. But this one is definitely up there.

Read More

Film Review: John Carter

I came into this film from the perspective of someone who has never read any of the Barsoom books. I was vaguely aware that the hero, John Carter, is somehow transported to Mars, and there finds different sorts of martians, but other than that, I was completely ignorant of the plot, characters, and setting. I will strive to make this as spoiler-free as possible; a few spoilers are given in inviso-text (highlight to read).

If I could sum up this film in one sentence, it would be "I kept waiting for the story to start, and then the movie was over."

Let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. Visually, the film is stunning. From the very first scene, where we see Martian airships battling one another, you really get the impression that you're seeing a completely unique culture and technology, and the creatures (especially the "green martian" Tharks) are exceedingly well done. My only complaint in the visual department is that Deja Thoris's eyes are sometimes a brilliant, cobalt blue, and sometimes they're the regular brown of actress Lynn Colins. Obviously, like David Lynch's Dune, they forgot to digitally color her eyes in some scenes.

I can't fault the acting, either. Given the type of movie this is, you don't go into it expecting Casablanca, but all of the actors and voice-actors do a credible and convincing enough job. Ciarán Hinds, who played Julius Caesar in the HBO series Rome a few years back, stands out as having given an exceptional performance, and brings a terrific gravitas to the screen whenever he's on it.

If anything, my biggest issue with the film is the story. The screenplay has no less than three credits, and I think it shows. We see a lot of setup, and then, just as you expect to see the plot take off, it slows down and we see yet more setup. Then just as we're about to see the story take off, down it goes and we're given more set up. By the time the finale arrives, I at least was left wondering just how we got there.

For example, John Carter spends the first half of the movie trying to get back to Earth, and then suddenly decides he's going to help Deja Thoris. Why? What caused his sudden change of heart? It seems to be a mystery, just as is the sudden change of heart of the Thorks to intervene in the Red Martian civil war.

I must say I also found the music completely forgettable. The simplistic color-coding of the good city and bad city was helpful, but some sort of memorable theme song for one or the other might have been a nice thing, too.

On the whole, I didn't hate this film, but neither was I blown away by it. Considering I spent $15 on a single ticket (IMAX 3D bumps up the price just a tad, but the 3D didn't seem to add anything to the experience), I was a bit disappointed by what I got. I'd give this film two and a half stars out of 5. 

Read More