Movie Review: THE AVENGERS

THE AVENGERS

2012

PG-13

"You think you're the only hero in the world?"

-- Nick Fury

The Avengers is a 2012 superhero action film directed by Joss Whedon that brings together the Marvel super-team for which the film is named. It serves as a type of sequel to a number of Marvel-centric films that have been released in the past four years. This film centers around an object known as the Tesseract, an energy source with an unknown amount of potential, which is stolen in the opening scenes by the banished Asgardian Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Because he perceives this as a threat and an act of war, S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) chooses to assemble the Avengers in the hopes of bringing them together to stop Loki's nefarious plot. After pulling some strings, he manages to bring together Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), but they initially have a bit of trouble getting along. Loki, with the help of Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner), makes a successful attack against S.H.I.E.L.D., and the ensuing battle helps pull the Avengers into a more cohesive unit. Armed and ready, they prepare to square off against Loki and his army of Chitauri who aim to conquer the Earth.

I would like to start this review by saying that I am by no means a die-hard Marvel comics fan. In fact, I'm not quite sure whether I've actually read an Marvel superhero comic, let alone one that's Avengers-centric. Anything I know about the Avengers Initiative stems from the films that have been released over the past few years. Still, I found myself becoming increasingly excited about the potential for The Avengers despite my relatively positive review of Captain America: The First Avenger and my so-so review of Thor. However, when the film started to garner extremely positive reviews, I definitely started to pay a little more attention. At the writing of this review, The Avengers currently holds a ninety-two percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, and it holds the following critical consensus:

With a script that never forgets its heroes' humanity and no shortage of superpowered set pieces, The Avengers lives up to its hype - and raises the bar for Marvel at the movies.

I'd have to say that I agree wholeheartedly.

Part of the reason the film works so well is the creative genius that is Joss Whedon. Those of you who read my review for The Cabin in the Woods will know that I think very highly of Whedon's talents as a screenwriter, and I personally think he's rather deft behind the camera as well. While this film doesn't necessarily feel like your typical Joss Whedon fare, it certainly has the pitch-perfect dialogue that fills his work. And what's truly great about the screenplay is that Whedon was able to flesh out the characters incredibly well despite the fact that there's so many different personalities dominating the screen. One of my biggest fears entering this film was whether the high number of A-list actors might overcrowd the film as they all jockey for position. With Whedon at the helm, however, each character is given exactly the right amount of screen-time, and just the right amount of touch is given to each of their personalities. While we may have been introduced to the characters in their own respective films, their relationships with one another in The Avengers are the facets that truly start to humanize each individual, making them more likable both individually and as a whole. This is where I thought the film succeeded most, by establishing each member of the Avengers as an individual with a specific set of emotions that ultimately makes them more easily relatable.

I also think that the dialogue and screenplay allowed for each of the actors to step up their game. Now, it was going to be tough for Downey Jr. to top his performances as Tony Stark/Iron Man from his two films, but I thought he did a fantastic job at least staying on par. I thought both Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth stepped it up a notch and brought more thoughtful and emotional characters to the screen this time around. It was also nice to get a little more of a back-story on Johansson and Renner's characters. The real surprise, however, was Tom Hiddleston as the devious Loki. As I previously mentioned, I was not a huge fan of the film Thor, and part of the reason it was so off-putting was that I didn't feel the need to root against Loki, who was also the villain in that film. This time around, there's something much more sinister about him, and I honestly thought Hiddleston brought his A-game. It's a truly fantastic performance, and I have to say that he should be applauded. Also be on the watch for some great smaller performances from the likes of Clark Gregg and Cobie Smulders, as well as vocal performances from Paul Bettany and Lou Ferrigno.

Oh, and some of the film's intangible qualities are top-notch as well. The special effects are utterly fantastic, and I was continually wowed by just how great the visual aspect of the film continued to be. On a personal note, I think they finally found a way to convey the Hulk properly, but that's just my own opinion. Some of the special effects are so beautifully intricate that you'll have a hard time believing that it's actually computer-generated. It's just that good. I'd also like to applaud Alan Silvestri for the score he composed for the film. It fit perfectly, and it might be one of the more memorable scores I've heard of late. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:

(Oh, and as with any Marvel film, make sure you stay all the way through the credits. There's a scene - or two - left there for your viewing pleasure.)

At the end of the day, The Avengers is one of the most honestly entertaining films I've seen in quite a while. I laughed and cheered along with the rest of the midnight audience, and it's easily one of the better movie-going experiences I've had in recent memory. I heard a few people already calling it the "best superhero movie" they'd ever seen, and although I can't quite place it on that high a pedestal just yet - The Dark Knight still holds that spot, and The Dark Knight Rises looms on the horizon - I'd say The Avengers definitely has to be in the conversation. It's just a fantastically-made film that's sure to keep a smile on your face.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You See It? Yes

Trailer Breakdown: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

When the teaser trailer for the upcoming 2012 Christopher Nolan-directed film The Dark Knight Rises was released over the summer, I had every intention of creating a trailer breakdown for it. The time came and went, however, and the idea was tossed to the scrap pile. Now, we have two full-length trailers that have been released for the film, and I find it only fitting to bring you a trailer breakdown not only for the new trailers but also for the teaser I so terribly forgot. As I always do with my trailer breakdowns, I have gone through and watched the trailers a number of times and have written down some questions and comments that came to mind. Below for your viewing pleasure are the three trailers followed by their respective questions. Let me know if you thought of anything else while watching these videos - there's a high chance there is something I might have missed.

Now that you've been reminded of the teaser trailer, here are the thoughts I had whilst watching it:

1. One of the most prevalent images in the teaser trailer is that of the crumbling skyscrapers that ultimately form the "Batman" insignia. What might this mean?
Despite the penchant for the dramatic, I think this image is rather easy to decipher. If we remember the end of 2008's The Dark Knight, we have the Joker (Heath Ledger) behind bars, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) deceased, and the Batman (Christian Bale) run out of town and believed to be the villain. Because Dent supposedly will assume the graces as the hero and the evilest mastermind that Gotham has seen is now locked away, it might be safe to say that Gotham experienced a bit of a renaissance in terms of a drop in crime. However, with the visage of Bane (Tom Hardy) looming on the horizon, one can only imagine the destruction that Gotham soon faces. In a sense, the image of a crumbling Gotham is a sign of things to come.

2. Speaking of Bane, we actually catch a glimpse of him here in the teaser.
While this is a little old news by now, the teaser trailer was the first time anyone truly got to see Tom Hardy all done up as our central antagonist, Bane. Adorned with a massive breathing apparatus on his face and head, he still manages to send a shiver down the spine. We even get to see him square off against Batman in the final images in the trailer in what's sure to be a wonderfully-choreographed fight.

3. We're getting a lot of images and dialogue from the previous films. What gives?
I think this was done for a few of reasons. First, I think the filmmakers wanted to give everyone a recap of what had happened in the previous films while setting up this final chapter with something familiar. Secondly, I think they wanted to emphasize the finality of this film. Regardless of box office output and accolades, this will be the final installment in Nolan's Batman trilogy. They have two title cards that say, "Every hero has a journey. Every journey has an end." We also get a voice-over using dialogue from Liam Neeson's character in Batman Begins that says the following:

If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, then you become something else entirely. A legend, Mr. Wayne. A legend.

And, at the end of the trailer, we get another title card that says, "The Legend Ends." All of this ties together to emphasize the finality of this film. Finally, I think that, by using older scenes, they didn't have to use as much material from the new film, which is probably a plus for them given the nature of how popular this movie will probably be.

4. What exactly is Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) saying in this trailer?
I remember that when this teaser first premiered, there was a lot of debate as to what exactly Oldman's character was saying while lying on the hospital bed. After a number of listens, here's what I was able to scrape out (Note: the conversation also includes a line from Christian Bale, either as Batman or as Bruce Wayne):

Gordon: We were in this together, and then you were gone. Now there is evil rising. The Batman has to come back.
Wayne: What if he doesn't exist anymore?
Gordon: He must... he must...

Now that that part's out of the way, let's talk about what it might mean. Obviously Gordon is referencing how he and Batman had worked together to bring down the crime in Gotham, but once Batman left, Gordon was left alone, waiting for evil to return. He knows he cannot combat it on his own, so he's essentially pleading for Batman to return to Gotham and reinstate himself as the vigilante power he once was. Wayne is obviously doubting whether he could possibly reprise his role as the Batman, but Gordon insists it must happen if Gotham is to remain alive.


And now, for the first full-length trailer:

So there's the first full-length trailer for The Dark Knight Rises; let's see what I thought about while watching it:

1. What's with the football game and the kid singing "The Star Spangled Banner?"
Right when I first saw this trailer, that was my initial thought. If you were only working off that first image, you would probably never guess that this was a trailer for a Batman film; however, it ultimately comes into play later in the trailer when we see Bane set off explosives that cause the football field to collapse. For those of you who may have seen the seven-minute prologue for this film at theaters in the past week or so, you'll know that Bane is going to be portrayed as a terrorist rather than your average criminal. That being said, his destruction of a public place seems to fit the mold a little bit better. And, with the crooning of the national anthem throughout the trailer, there's this odd sense of foreboding that the music somehow fits perfectly. It's an eerie combination, but somehow Nolan makes it work here.

2. What is all this talk about "war heroes" and "peacetime?"
The first mention of this in the trailer comes when Commissioner Gordon is coming up to give a speech at what appears to be a memorial for Harvey Dent. Two men in the crowd discuss how the mayor is going to let Gordon go in the next few months because he's a "war hero," and those aren't needed in times of peace. If you recall what I said about the concept of a "crumbling Gotham" back at the top of this post, I think this idea makes a little more sense. Allegedly, The Dark Knight Rises will take place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, meaning that there has been an extended time of peace and prosperity in Gotham. As a result, the mayor may think that Gordon is no longer necessary in his position. As we see later in the trailer, however, a new evil is, indeed, rising, as is evidenced by the quote, "There's a storm coming," which is said a little later in the trailer. It looks as though Gotham might be getting ready to experience a scene of utter and complete chaos.

3. Who is that woman dancing with Bruce Wayne?
This is actually our first real look at Selina Kyle, more commonly known as Catwoman, who will be portrayed by Anne Hathaway. Although we're not getting a ton of detail from the trailer, I think it's safe to say that Hathaway looks to be a bit feisty in this one, and I'm sure we can all breathe a heavy sigh of relief.

4. We get our "first" real snippet of Bane's dialogue in this trailer, but what does he say?
For those of you who have seen the film's prologue, you might know that there has been quite a discussion about Bane's dialogue in the film. I personally have not seen the prologue, but I know that many a moviegoer is scratching their head as to what exactly Bane said in his scenes. We do get one line of dialogue from him in this trailer, and it reads as follows:

When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die.

Because he has a breathing apparatus, it may be a tad bit difficult to understand exactly what he's going to be saying. I read an article chronicling the prologue that talked about how an unintelligible villain may have been Nolan's only real option after having an over-the-top and charismatic villain in Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. To go in the polar opposite direction, Nolan may have done just enough to distance his Bane from his Joker so that audiences won't necessarily be able to compare the two. Instead, they'll be able to look at each villain as an individual and see how effective they actually are.

5. Finally, is the film going to get too bogged down with too many big-time stars?
I often ask this question whenever a film looks to have a massive cast list that includes a lot of A-list actors. Sometimes ensembles can work, but often times, there's just too much bravado on-screen for the audience to handle. Generally, I have faith in Nolan and his direction, so I'm holding out hope that this will all work out; however, here's a look at the major players who will be appearing in this film, some of whom I've already mentioned:

Christian Bale (as Bruce Wayne / Batman)
Tom Hardy (as Bane)
Gary Oldman (as Jim Gordon)
Anne Hathaway (as Selina Kyle / Catwoman)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as John Blake)
Marion Cotillard (as Miranda Tate)
Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox)
Michael Caine (as Alfred)
Juno Temple (as Holly Robinson)

I don't know about you, but that seems like quite the crowded screen...


And now, for the latest full-length trailer:

Now that you've had the chance to watch the latest trailer, take a look at the thoughts that crossed my mind while watching it:

1. We're seeing a lot of familiar faces in the trailer, but we're also being introduced to what may be a bigger character than previously anticipated. What's up with that?

As you may have noticed, we are seeing quite a few characters from previous films as well as some we've already met in past trailers. We catch glimpses of Batman, Catwoman, Gordon, Lucius Fox, Alfred and Bane, but the biggest change here is that we're getting our first real look at Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character. As of right now, all that is really known about the character is that his name is John Blake, and he's a beat cop assigned to work under Gordon. However, if you've been listening to the rumor mill as of late, there's a little bit of talk that John Blake may be the character that stands up to take Batman's place should something terrible befall our hero. Perhaps it's just Internet rumor, but I wouldn't doubt Nolan taking a chance to leave his mark on the franchise.

2. I also thought there was a lot more action in this trailer.
Although previous trailers - as well as the previous films in Nolan's Batman saga - have shown quite a bit of action, I never truly thought of these films as strictly action-based. However, there's definitely quite a bit happening in this latest trailer. We're getting snippets of the opening scene - the one with Bane on the airliner - that has already been played for millions of fans, but it's the second half of this trailer that truly shows quite a bit of battle. We even catch a glimpse or two of hand-to-hand combat between Bane and Batman, which should be quite the treat for the audience.

3. Speaking of a fight between Bane and Batman... I thought I saw Bane holding a broken Batman mask?
Your eyes did not deceive you. As we've already seen in one of the film's teaser posters, this trailer confirms that there will be a scene in which Bane will toss away a broken Batman mask. In one strain of the comic books, Bane is the villain who finally kills Batman, and there's been a lot of talk as to whether Nolan will be going that route with his saga. The continued images of a broken down Batman and Bruce Wayne make it seem as though this might be the case, and this trailer even goes so far as to suggest that Bane may have a bit of a personal vendetta against Wayne. At one point, after hurting and terrorizing our hero, Bruce asks Bane why he didn't just kill him. Bane simply replies, "Your punishment must be more severe."

4. Should we still be worried that we won't be able to understand Bane?
After the first few trailers were released, there was a growing panic amongst fans that Bane may be entirely inaudible. I'm not sure whether this trailer debunks that idea or if we've just grown accustomed to trying to figure out his dialogue, but he seemed to speak more clearly this time around. The quote I gave you above is easily the most understandable line he's uttered in the trailers, but even another line - "I'm Gotham's reckoning" - is moderately understandable. Perhaps there's hope after all.

5. What will the relationship between Batman and Catwoman be?
It's starting to seem more and more apparent that the two will be allies during the film. The first full-length trailer made it seem as though the two might have a bit of a conflicted relationship, but this new one shows them working side-by-side on many an occasion. The two do happen to have one of the more interesting dialogue exchanges in the new trailer, however:

Catwoman: You don't owe these people any more. You've given them everything.
Batman: Not everything. Not yet.

I'll let your mind run wild with what that might mean. I have too many theories running through my head at the moment. 

6. Holy smokes, Batman! Is that the Batwing? 
Yes. Yes, it is. We finally catch a glimpse of the Batwing, and boy does it already look glorious. I know the cast and crew had some issues with the Batwing during filming, but the final product looks as though it should bring quite a bit to the table. I suppose we'll still have to wait and see.

*****

Ultimately, all of these questions will have to wait until the film is released this summer. Until then, I can tell you that I'll be waiting (im)patiently until I am able to see the film hit the big screen.

The Dark Knight Rises will be released in U.S. theaters on July 20, 2012.

Movie Review: CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

2011
PG-13


"A weak man knows the value of strength, the value of power."
-- Dr. Abraham Erskine

Captain America: The First Avenger is a 2011 superhero action film directed by Joe Johnston that serves as the final singular film leading to the mega-Marvel mash-up, The Avengers, due out next summer. We open on Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), a scrawny young man with a series of medical defects, as he tries to enlist in the Army to fight in World War II. Because of his size and stature, however, he is constantly denied by the military. One evening, however, a German scientist named Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), who's working for the U.S. government, meets Rogers and finds him to be ideal for a special project on which he's working. He convinces Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) to try a procedure that will make Rogers into the first of a series of super-soldiers. The procedure succeeds flawlessly, but a Nazi agent deliberately destroys the lab, leaving Rogers as the only super-soldier to be created. Rather than being sent to the front lines, he's left in the States to help sell war bonds, but on a morale tour through Italy, he learns just how much of a joke he has become with the men in the ranks. While there, Rogers learns of the disappearance of a friend's battalion and elects to rescue them. With the help of Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) and a young Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper), Rogers is able to do just that, but he finds himself wrapped in an even deeper conspiracy involving one of the Nazi's leading men, Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), who presents much more than meets the eye.

Now, I'd have to say that of the two Marvel films to be released this summer, Captain America was the one I was more excited to see (as evidenced by its inclusion on my 2011 Summer Movie Preview). While I correctly predicted that Thor would be a tad so-so, I had high hopes for this one after seeing Chris Evans steal the show in 2010's The Losers, a movie only watchable because of his presence. Add the fact that it seemed like most of the rest of the film community was also expecting Captain America to be the superhero film to beat this summer, and I felt justified in my expectations. After seeing it at midnight last night, can I say that it delivered on those expectations? Well, sorta.

The problems with the film don't necessarily start with the acting, which is solidly good throughout the entire film. I did expect a little bit more out of Evans, but he's definitely a legitimate presence on-screen, both physically and comically when the time calls for it. I can't think of any other actor today who could've done a much better job than he with the role, so I suppose he should be applauded for that. We get some good performances from the likes of Atwell and Cooper as well. Tucci is drastically under-used, but his moments on-screen are some of the funniest and, at times, the most heartfelt. Jones brings a level of comedy to the screen that I haven't seen him bring in quite some time, so it's a breath of fresh air to see him journeying down that path again. And I found Weaving to be a very convincing villain this time around, although I've never truly had any issue with Weaving's level of acting. He brings such a force to each of his characters that it's hard not to like him.

No, the real issue I had with the film involved the screenplay itself. Now, there's nothing wrong with the story. I found it to be engaging and inviting, and it kept me hooked and wondering until the very end. My problem was that it all seemed a little too fast-paced. Now, hear me out for a moment. I realize that it's a big-budget action film, and it needs to move quickly in order for it to remain exciting, and I'm probably criticizing the screenplay a tad too much, but there's only so much I can take with one particular film. My problem was that they tried to insert a bit of character development, but the filmmakers tried to rush it, so it all felt a little bit forced, almost as though they were trying to squeeze it in to distract from the constant acting scenes. I got the emotion they were trying to convey with certain characters, but I think the film would have benefited from slowing down for a few scenes here and there to emphasize that emotion. I'm not sure if that even begins to make sense, but I just wanted the film to slow a few times to expand on the character development. I guess we can't all have it our way, though.

Still, there's a lot to be admired about this particular comic book adaptation. Because we're getting a superhero from back in the 1940s, one of the challenges the filmmakers had to face was making it true to that particular era while still bringing a 21st-century liveliness to it all. In that regard, I think Captain America can be considered a smashing success. As Rottentomatoes.com, the online critical review aggregate, has surmised, Captain America presents a "pleasantly retro vibe" that conveys wonderfully across the screen. At the same time, we get a very good musical score from Alan Silvestri, although I thought I heard some moments that sounded eerily similar to a track from Star Wars, but I won't hold it against him.

All that being said, Captain America: The First Avenger is a solid superhero film that's definitely worth seeing as a popcorn-munching romp of fun. The performances are strong enough to keep you engaged with the characters, and the action sequences are spectacular enough to keep you sitting in awe. Is it changing the game? Of course not, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve as wonderful summertime entertainment. Isn't that what seeing movies is all about?

Oh, and please don't forget to stay past the credits. I can assure you that you won't be disappointed!

Movie Review Summary:Grade: B
1 Thumb Up

Trailer Breakdown: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

It's time to break down another trailer! In the past few days, I'd been hearing rumblings about a leaked teaser trailer for the upcoming 2012 film, The Amazing Spider-man, but I hadn't found it until it officially hit IMDb. With the release of a teaser trailer for another 2012 film some of you may recognize as The Dark Knight Rises, I'm sure that this particular trailer has taken a little bit of a back seat. However, I found quite a bit to talk about, so let's get to it, shall we? Here's the trailer for your viewing pleasure, and below will be my breakdown and analysis.

And now, to the thoughts that arose while I watched the trailer:

1) Will a franchise rebooted this quickly be able to grasp its former audience as well as a new generation of audiences?
It may not seem like it, but it's only been nine years since the first of Sam Raimi's Spider-man films hit theaters back in 2002. The most recent - and ultimately final - installment in that particular branch of the franchise was released in 2007 and sizzled in rather lackluster fashion, in my own personal opinion. Because of creative differences, the studio chose to part ways with the Raimi and Tobey Maguire-led films, instead choosing to restart everything. Now, we have seen quick reboots before (need I remind you of the 2008 film, The Incredible Hulk, which came only five years after Hulk), so I suppose it's not entirely unprecedented. However, Raimi's Spider-man franchise was (mostly) applauded, so taking something that worked and tweaking it so soon could spell certain doom. Fortunately, I have quite a bit of faith in this particular adaptation, for one particular reason...

2) ...which is the cast list for The Amazing Spider-man.
While the use of Tobey Maguire as our central lead in Raimi's films worked relatively well, I never could get past the fact that he was a little on the annoying side. Sure, he had some stellar actors working alongside him (with Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina and James Franco, just to name a few), but seeing him as the lead in this big-time action franchise never sat well with me personally. However, the reboot's cast list seems extremely promising. First and foremost, we're getting a high-caliber, uprising star in Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker, which would be enough to make me see the film. He first blew me away with his subtly dramatic performance in 2008's Boy A, and he reached the collective consciousness of the mainstream public in 2010's The Social Network. I think he'll take this role and run with it. The rest of the cast fills out rather nicely as well, if I do say so myself, with the likes of Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Rhys Ifans and Denis Leary in lead or supporting roles. It's almost a little unfair when you think about it.

3) How will director Marc Webb perform with this much pressure?
If you don't instantly recognize the name of Marc Webb, I honestly wouldn't be surprised. The man made his career start by directing music videos for the likes of No Doubt, Green Day and 3 Doors Down. He only has one feature film to his name to date, but that one film - 2009's (500) Days of Summer - was a sheer act of brilliance. Still, there's nothing to say that he won't be a one-and-done director, and I'm sure there's a lot of speculation as to whether Webb can deliver in this particular situation. I have faith that he'll be just fine, but because it's only his sophomore effort, I can assure you that he'll have his skeptics.

4) Does this film seem a little bit darker to anyone else?
While Raimi's franchise always seemed a little cheesy to me, probably as a result of Maguire's inclusion, there's something about this trailer that makes me think that The Amazing Spider-man might be delving into a deeper and darker level. And how can you blame them for such? With the success of superhero films like Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise, there really shouldn't be anything stopping them from trying to get into the grit of the story. Will it work for this particular film? No one can really know for sure, but I know that Garfield is capable of reaching those deep emotional levels, so we could be in for quite a performance.

5) Hooray for exposition!
As you can see at the beginning of the trailer, we'll be getting at least a little bit of the back-story as to why Peter Parker ends up living with his aunt and uncle rather than his own parents. Now, I can't quite remember everything from the first of Raimi's Spider-man films, but I don't recall ever having any true discussion as to Peter's parents' whereabouts. If you know me at all, you'll know I'm a bit of a sucker for exposition and background, so this should play right up my alley. Kudos to the filmmakers already!

6) How will this film look visually?
There's moments in the trailer where I was already being wowed by what I was seeing. For example, I instantly fell in love with the beauty of the room where Peter is ultimately bitten. However, there are a few scenes in the trailer that made me scratch my head as well, most noticeably the final sequence where we see Spider-man weaving his way through the rooftops above New York City. I don't know about the rest of you, but that scene felt a little too much like a video game in its look and style, and although it was definitely a fascinating watch, there's a part of me that's quietly hoping the visual effects won't quite look like that. I realize the film's still a year away, but that's enough to give me reason to pause. At the end of the day, this will be a big-budget action flick, and it has to look the part.

The Amazing Spider-man is set to hit U.S. theaters on July 3, 2012.

Movie Review: GREEN LANTERN

GREEN LANTERN

2011
PG-13

Green Lantern is a 2011 superhero action film directed by Martin Campbell that tells the origins of Earth's first addition to the Green Lantern Corps. When hotshot fighter pilot Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) manages to destroy a new fighter jet during a simulated dogfight, he comes under heavy scrutiny from his superiors and his peers, especially his wingman (and love interest) Carol Ferris (Blake Lively), for being reckless and irresponsible. Later that night, Hal is whisked to a remote swamp by a mysterious ball of green energy. Once there, he meets an alien who has crash-landed on Earth - the alien soon bestows a mysterious green ring and lantern to Hal and tells him that the ring has chosen him to succeed him. Confused, Hal takes the items home and begins to ponder their power. He soon learns the basics of their use, but as soon as he discovers the ring's hidden power, the same ball of energy takes him to a faraway planet called Oa, where thousands of Green Lanterns reside. Hal begins to learn the ways of the Lanterns via a crash course from lead Lantern Sinestro (Mark Strong). Meanwhile, back on Earth, an aspiring scientist name Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) receives the honor of conducting the autopsy on the aforementioned alien. In the process, however, he becomes infected by another alien source hidden inside the creature's body. Almost simultaneously, the Lanterns learn of an old enemy named Parallax spreading throughout the galactic sectors in the form of a new type of evil that threatens to take over the universe.

To be fair, I'm selling the storyline a little bit short with the synopsis I've given above. There is a little bit more going on than what I've posited already, and it actually comes off as less confusing than what I've written. However, I don't want to delve into too many details lest I give away the entire storyline before you have a chance to give it a gander. We actually get a relatively interesting story to follow. Sure, it's not brilliant, and it's lack in anything truly unpredictable, but it does well enough to keep the audience engaged in something more than the characters. There are holes here and there, but for the most part, the screenplay works relatively well considering the genre.

If anything's really selling the movie as a success, it's the level of acting. It's nothing truly spectacular, but the cast does a decent job with what they're given. Reynolds always finds a way to be engaging and charismatic in his own off-beat way, so he does well as our central lead. There are a few bigger names that are given screen-time but don't necessarily bring much to the table (here's looking at you, Miss Lively and Tim Robbins). We actually get some semi-strong performances from Sarsgaard (whom I never would've recognized aside from his voice) and Strong (who I also probably wouldn't have recognized), two actors who generally bring a higher standard to their roles. We are also graced with some rather good vocal performances from some of our CGI characters. Be on the listen for the likes of Michael Clarke Duncan and Geoffrey Rush as two of the Green Lanterns who aid Hal in his training.

We also get a rather well-crafted soundtrack for the film, and although it's not the most stellar score I've ever heard, I would like to tip my hat to James Newton Howard for his work.

Overall, Green Lantern has its moments, but it never truly pushes itself beyond a level of "good." I think it had the potential to be something more, but for whatever reason, the filmmakers decided to hold back a little too much, going for something rote and a little contrived instead. In different hands, this movie could have been a smash-hit, but as it stands, it will probably be a fun once-view that will quickly fade into obscurity. Although, they did leave a set-up for a potential sequel - be sure to stick through the credits for an additional scene (it comes halfway through the credits, so you don't have to wait all the way through).

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: C+
0.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: THOR

THOR

2011
PG-13

Thor is a 2011 superhero action film directed by Kenneth Branagh and serves as the latest addition to the list of films leading to the upcoming "Avengers Initiative" movie set for release next year. The film starts with a flash-forward on Earth as Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) hits Thor (Chris Hemsworth) with her car. We're immediately taken back to Thor's home world of Asgard where we learn that he is the heir apparent to the great king Odin (Anthony Hopkins). However, Thor's arrogance and desire to start a war with the enemy frost giants forces Odin to banish Thor from Asgard and strip him of his supernatural powers. Thor soon finds himself a mortal on Earth, where he meets the aforementioned Jane, a scientist trying to find the secrets to the wormholes first proposed by Einstein. Jane and her fellow scientists Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) try to make sense of the seemingly crazed ramblings of Thor as they try to piece together from where he may have come. The group soon learns of a mysterious "satellite" crash near where they found Thor, which immediately piques the Asgardian's interest as he realizes the satellite is, in fact, his hammer Mjölnir. With Jane's help, he makes his way to the site which has been surrounded by government security, but he soon realizes that without his immortality, he cannot control Mjölnir. As Thor struggles to find a way back to Asgard, he learns of the nefarious plot concocted by his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and swears to defend both Asgard and Earth from his rule.

I'd like to start by saying that I am not a fan of the source comics and have never been one. I don't think I've ever read a comic book of any kind, to be honest, but I just think that should be mentioned as I try to explain my opinion of this film. In a way, I was able to go into the film without any real expectations, so I could view it simply as a film rather than an adaptation. I've had conversations with avid Marvel fans who span the entire spectrum of enjoyment with Thor - some said they loved it, others said they hated it, but they all mentioned that they based their opinion on whether or not they felt it reflected the comic books well. I will not be doing that; instead, I'll be looking at this as a stand-alone film despite the fact that I know it's anything but.

I had some hesitations going into the film based on the trailers I had seen in the previous few months. In fact, there was enough hesitation that I did not place Thor on my list of the twenty-five summer films I was most excited to see. Something about the trailers made it look a little bit on the unsatisfying side, and I'd have to say that I feel like I hit the nail on the head with my original feelings. While the film wasn't horrendous by any means, it lacked any real spark that could possibly propel it towards anything beyond being "good."

I actually didn't know that Branagh had directed the film until the day of its release, and the moment I heard it, I had some qualms. Branagh is a classically trained Shakespearean actor and director who has deftly taken on such famous titles as Henry V, Hamlet and Frankenstein. But how would he do with a superhero comic book adaptation? I've heard reports that Branagh has been a massive Thor fan since he was a child, so that precision should have translated into a well thought-out endeavor. However, things just seemed a little amiss throughout this one.

The screenplay wasn't anything spectacular, giving us a rather predictable storyline aided by some very simplistic dialogue. From the first moment, even non-comic book readers like myself should be able to guess exactly how this one's going to end, and that doesn't do much in terms of hooking the viewer into the movie. And while not atrocious, the dialogue spoken throughout the film seemed so simple and easy that it just wasn't realistic. It's difficult not to compare this film to its Iron Man predecessors, but part of the reason those films worked so well is because the dialogue was fresh and interesting. In Thor, it's just a little bit stale, and it's hard to imagine that anyone would speak in such a manner.

To be fair, the Iron Man films are lucky enough to have the ever-fabulous Robert Downey Jr., and unfortunately, no one in Thor comes within a thousand miles of his brilliance. Our lead is Hemsworth, whose largest film role prior to this one was his cameo appearance in the beginning of 2009's Star Trek. He definitely has the look for Thor, but his acting bravado just isn't quite enough to make him a captivating lead for this particular film. Sadly, we'll have to see some more of him in the Avengers film, and I can already tell you that he's going to be pushed to the side by Downey and Chris Evans, who will appear as Captain America. Considering the rest of Thor's cast, we should have seen something a little bit better than what we get. Recent Oscar winner Portman mails in a performance that's not bad but not good by any means. Skarsgård and Hiddleston are decent but nothing spectacular. Dennings probably gives the most realistic performance in the film, but she's not given much screen-time. And even the "great" Anthony Hopkins isn't all that great. I could make an argument towards the "greatness" of Hopkins' overall acting ability, but I won't bog down this review with that particular argument.

If anything works extremely well in the film, it's the musical composition which definitely deserves mention. Patrick Doyle does well with the score that fits the scene almost perfectly. It's always there, but it's never so strong that it dominates the film. It does exactly what a film score should do: complement the events on-screen without taking them over.

Overall, Thor is a pedestrian addition to the annals of superhero film history. I understand its necessity in crafting a prelude to the character as he enters the Avengers film, but there just wasn't anything that was going to blow you away. It's not quite good, but it's not quite bad - it's just found a niche somewhere in the middle, but that doesn't necessarily bode well for its longevity. I'd say save your money and wait for the DVD unless you desperately think you need to see it on the big screen for the visual effects (which were, admittedly, quite good even if they were a tad bit frantic). But visual effects don't make a successful film - screenplay and acting do, and in those facets, Thor just doesn't entirely succeed.

(Oh, and as is the new norm with Marvel flicks, don't forget to wait through all the credits for one last scene. It might seem like a long time - the credits span seven minutes - but if you're interested, you'll probably want to sit through them all for that one last bit).

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: C+
0.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: UNBREAKABLE

UNBREAKABLE

2000
PG-13

Unbreakable is a 2000 dramatic mystery film directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The film opens on David Dunn (Bruce Willis), a married man on his way home from New York on a train that derails, killing everyone on-board - except him. Somehow, David walks away from the crash unscathed, causing everyone around him to wonder just how he managed to do so. After leaving a memorial service for all those killed in the crash, David finds a note stuck under his car's windshield asking him how many times he had been sick in his life. The question quickly becomes an obsession, and with the help of his wife Audrey (Robin Wright), David realizes that he had never once been sick in his life. He traces the note to a special art gallery where he meets Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), a man who was born with a type of brittle bone syndrome. After conversing for a little while, Elijah believes that David may be "unbreakable," in that he cannot be injured. He starts to attempt to convince David that the world may need a person like him - a protector, so to speak. David shrugs off the notion, but as time goes by, he starts to wonder whether Elijah may actually be correct.

Now, I watched this film last night but was too tired afterward to write the review, so bear with me if this sounds a little jumbled. I had been meaning to watch this film ever since I watched The Sixth Sense because many people had told me it's actually good Shyamalan fare. And in comparison to some of his recent efforts (i.e., 2008's The Happening and 2010's The Last Airbender), Unbreakable is damn near brilliant. However, compared to the annals of the rest of film history, it simply falls into the "quite good" category. I had a very interesting viewing of this film, considering it's one of the only Shyamalan films I've seen in which I did not know the ultimate twist going into watching it. The Sixth Sense and The Village (which I have yet to watch) were both spoiled for me before I had the chance to see them, so they proved to be a little lackluster (although, the power of The Sixth Sense still ranks it at #142 on my all-time list). That being said, let's get to the actual review of the film...

We actually have a pretty good screenplay, although it literally makes you wait until the very last scene to punch everything home. This seems to be Shyamalan's sole purpose in making film - to make the audience wait until the final moments to garner some resolution. I have to say that I wasn't entirely expecting the final outcome, but as I thought about it as I drifted off to sleep, I realized how obvious it had been. I should have picked up on it a lot sooner, but perhaps I was tired from a long day of movies (in case you didn't notice, check out my other review from yesterday: Insidious; Source Code; Win Win). We've basically got a superhero story on our hands here, but it's not really packaged as such throughout the film. The story really focuses on Dunn's inner struggle as he tries to figure out just what's "wrong" with him. In a way, I guess you can say this is like an origins story of a superhero. The fact that it's all encased within this comic book universe that Elijah so craves makes it all the more dashing. My only real issue with the screenplay was that it moved so slowly that it never lets you properly hook into what's going on. Again, that could've just been me trying to watch it as I slowly succumbed to the wonders of dreamland - maybe I'll have to give this one another view on a fully functional day.

The acting is good, in a very subtle sort of way. I loved Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense, and I wanted desperately to love him here as well, but I came away merely liking the character. However, his collaboration with Shyamalan helped to bring out the actor in Willis, rather than the comedic action junkie we had all grown to know and love. His roles in both The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are so glaringly different from roles he's taken on in the past that it's a little awkward to see him as such. That doesn't take away the fact that he is a very good actor, though. Aside from Willis, there's really no one else to talk about except Samuel L. Jackson. It took me a little while for his character to grow on me, but eventually, I was able to fall into his warped sense of reality. Jackson plays him well, with an outward subtlety that almost masks the manic energy floating around inside Elijah's skull. It's quite a sight to behold, actually.

I'd also like to take a moment and give credit to James Newton Howard, who composed the score for the film. Although it's not quite as good as his composition for The Sixth Sense, it's still quite good and fits the film very well. Here's a little taste of the score, in case you're curious to hear it:

Overall, I think I'm going to have to go back and watch Unbreakable again in a few weeks. The more I think about the film, the more I like it, but I might want to give it another go just to prove that my feelings are warranted. In a day and age when Shyamalan has become a bit of a laughing stock in Hollywood, everything he does has to be taken with a grain of salt. However, Unbreakable might actually be one of his better films, and although it's not quite reaching The Sixth Sense, it could very easily come close.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B-
1.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: THE GREEN HORNET

THE GREEN HORNET

2011
PG-13

You can watch the trailer here

The Green Hornet is a 2011 action film directed by Michel Gondry that follows a young and wild man named Britt Reid (Seth Rogen) who has wasted his life partying and living his lavish lifestyle to its unfulfilling fullest. His father (Tom Wilkinson), the chief editor of a major newspaper called The Daily Sentinel, despises his son’s state of living. Upon his father’s untimely death, Britt is forced into his shoes and realizes that he has never done anything with his life. He meets Kato (Jay Chou) who was his father’s mechanic and coffee maker. Britt quickly learns that Kato is a martial arts expert and a genius with machinery, and the two decide to join forces in order to bring justice to the streets. Their guise, however, relies on the fact that they will pose as villains in order to get close to the real bad guys and bring them down from within. They soon butt heads with the local gangster Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz) who already runs all the crime in the city. With the unwitting help of secretary Lenore (Cameron Diaz), Britt and Kato delve into their plan at full-speed, never truly questioning the morality behind it all.

I’m going to start with acting this time around (you’ll see why in a moment). Now, there’s no one that terrible in The Green Hornet – no one except Seth Rogen, that is. He’s absolutely dreadful. I’m sure he went for outright comedy, which is his niche market, but he’s one of the last people that should’ve had a crack at this role. It just doesn’t fit the tone of the film at all. Considering he’s the lead character and the person we see for most of the flick, there’s a little bit of an issue.

To be fair, the actors didn’t have much of a script with which to work. There’s a little bit of intrigue to the story, but the dialogue is so horrendous that it’s hard to take any of it seriously. Case and point: Christoph Waltz’s character has lines that are so bad that it reduces the recent Academy Award-winner to a tiny slice of what he could have possibly been. His lines are so bad that I wanted to tell him that he didn’t need to jump at the first paycheck that came his way post-Oscar. A lot of the blame here also lies with Rogen, who co-wrote the script. I’m sure in his mind, it was hilarious and captivating, but it’s really just a bit of drivel.

If anybody stands out, it’s Jay Chou as Kato, stepping into a role made famous by Bruce Lee in the original T.V. series (if you see the movie, pay attention for a Lee homage; it’s pretty blatant, but if you’re not paying attention, you could easily miss it). He brings a bit of comedy as well as the fighting prowess needed for the role, and it’s nice to have him opposite the dreadful Rogen to bring something positive to the screen.

We do have a couple of interesting cameos in the film. One of them comes from Edward Furlong – the boy from Terminator 2: Judgment Day – and you may not even recognize him. I had to look closely because he doesn’t even look like he used to. But it’s him. However, the real cameo cake needs to go to none other than James Franco. My God, this man is everywhere right now! But it’s definitely a pleasant surprise to see him grace the screen in an extremely funny role.

Seriously though, I’d say this movie isn’t worth watching. I usually like to highlight a couple of positive attributes at the end of these posts, but I really don’t think you should waste your time with The Green Hornet. If it does poorly, it won’t get a sequel (yes, the ending leaves it open to such). Please don’t pad Seth Rogen’s ego any further.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: D
1.5 Thumbs Down

Movie Review: MEGAMIND

MEGAMIND

2010
PG


You can watch the trailer here

I know that I'm a little bit late on seeing Megamind - I had every intention of seeing it last Friday upon its release - but now that I have seen it, you can have my review.

Our story, which was directed by Tom McGrath, follows the titular Megamind (voiced by Will Ferrell), a supervillain whose only joy in life is his constant battles with his arch-nemesis, Metro Man (voiced by Brad Pitt). When Megamind finally dispatches of the city's hero, life becomes dull. He resolves to create a new hero for his battling pleasure, mistakenly choosing TV cameraman Hal (voiced by Jonah Hill) as his future nemesis. When things go awry, Megamind enlists the help of an ever-present reporter named Roxanne (voiced by Tina Fey) to bring Metro City back to its feet.

The screenplay itself is your standard, superhero fare with a few twists in just the right places. We see a man stand up for the good of the city, but this time, that man starts his reign as the city's most prominent villain. I think what I liked most about the screenplay were the throwbacks to the original Superman film. Baby Megamind's start in life almost perfectly mirrors Superman's, and the same can be said for Metro Man himself. Also, one of Megamind's alter egos in the film bears a strong resemblance to a certain character played by Marlon Brando back in 1978. A coincidence? I think not.

The voice acting is good, if not spectacular. Ferrell brings his usual stuff to the lead role, and it's hit-or-miss just the same. Pitt and Hill are both equally good in much smaller roles. However, Fey's character stands out a little bit more simply because the animation artists were able to convey Fey's spirit through her on-screen persona. It was definitely a sight for sore eyes.

I would like to say that Megamind has arguably one of the greatest composition soundtracks that I have ever heard, and the filmmakers found a way to incorporate each song into its respective scene seamlessly. Aside from Hans Zimmer and Lorne Balfe's score, we've got a lot of familiar music from pop culture blasting through our ears. From Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train" to Gun n' Roses' "Welcome to the Jungle," it's a rock party that I thoroughly enjoyed. They even threw in a little MJ at the end.

Overall, Megamind is good, but I don't think it's worth running to see. If you're going to watch it in theaters, see it in the morning when you can get a matinee price; otherwise, I'd just wait for the DVD.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B
Thumb... Slightly Up
Addition to Awards

Movie Review: SUPERMAN

SUPERMAN

1978
PG


You can watch the trailer here

I realize that this is one of those movies that I probably should have seen ages ago, and in retrospect, I think I've seen bits and pieces over the years. However, I had not seen the entire film, so it was probably a good thing I put it onto my NetFlix queue. As usual, I have a few things I would like to say about the movie. The film was directed by Richard Donner.

Let's start with the story. By now (meaning 2010), everyone and their mother knows the basic story of Superman: he was born on the planet Krypton and sent to Earth by his parents as his home planet exploded. Once on Earth, he was taken in by a small-town farming couple who raised him into a young man. Upon the death of his surrogate father, he made his way north to the Arctic where he witnessed the construction of the Fortress of Solitude, where he would learn many of the secrets of his heritage. Upon reaching full adulthood, he entered the real world as Clark Kent, aspiring journalist. Taking up a job at the Daily Planet in Metropolis, Kent continued life, balancing his day job with his alter-ego, Superman.

You can fill in the pieces where need be, but that's the basic gist of it. In this particular film, Superman takes on Lex Luthor (played well by Gene Hackman, who's given much too little screentime), who's planning to sink the western coast of California. I don't have any major qualms with the screenplay, but I don't think it was spectacular by any means. The first hour of the film, which shows the demise of Krypton and Kent's beginnings on Earth, prove to be the film's most intriguing pieces. Once "Superman" actually appears, everything loses a little bit of luster. Don't get me wrong, it's still entirely entertaining, but it goes from a movie with a hefty amount of drama to a somewhat goofy action flick. This would be totally fine if things didn't seem to go perfectly for Superman. Everything seemed a little too gift-wrapped as it happened; I would've liked to see a little bit more negativity thrown his way.

The acting is fine all-around. As I previously said, Hackman did a very good job as the evil genius plotting against the world, but his screentime left something to be desired. Maybe I'm just a little used to the 21st-century influence on superhero flicks where the bad guy spends a lot of time as the center of attention. The late Christopher Reeve is good as Superman/Clark Kent, and Ned Beatty provides a couple of laughs. If anybody's gonna take the acting cake this time around, it's Marlon Brando as the ill-fated Jor-El. His small role in the beginning of the film lays the groundwork for Superman's upbringing, and his presence on the screen is unmatched by anyone else in the movie. He is the godfather, after all.

The movie does have a couple things going for it. The special effects, although cheesy by 21st-century standards, were probably state of the art back in 1978. Aside from the obvious green-screen (well, probably blue-screen back then) effects with the flying, the rest of the effects are actually pretty well-done. However, the one major selling point for Superman is definitely the musical score. John Williams, who in the three years prior to this film had scored both Jaws and the original Star Wars film, continued his role of classic scores this time around. It may not be as memorable as the other two films I just mentioned, but it fits the Superman saga perfectly.

Although I have my grievances with the screenplay, Superman still set the standard for the superhero genre. It's only been in recent years that that bar has begun to be re-set, but this one should always be able to stand the test of time.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B+
Thumb... Up