When Movies Become More Than Movies

Movies are changing in so many ways, one of the most overt being the way they are presented to us. The old days gave us movies straight – just a stand-alone hour and a half to two hour flick, no adornments, no extra stuff attached, just the straight film as it was. Now, though, that’s different. Now, it almost seems like the traditional forms of movies just aren’t enough to please moviegoers anymore. Movies are going interactive.

DISCLAIMER: Most people who watch movies are not this attractive. Picture from movietwatch.blogspot.com.

That sounds like a rather extreme conclusion – obviously plenty of movies today are still very traditionally done, and people enjoy them fine. However, a large portion of the big movies in theaters now don’t seem content with just being movies. They have to try to be something else – like, say, a comic book. The most blatant example of what I’m talking about is Marvel’s Avengers series.

For the whole two of you that aren’t up to date, they’re basically reconstructing the entire way we see movie franchises, sequels and tie-ins. They’ve taken their four big box-office draw superheroes – Thor, Captain America, Hulk and Iron Man – and crammed them into one big movie in The Avengers. They’re also making individual films for each one, and sequels for all of them, in between each Avengers movie. The effect is a constant whirlpool of hype and – somewhat cynically so, perhaps – box office dough.

Hot chick in her underwear destroying everything? That's two cliches in one. Picture from businessinsider.com.

By doing this, Marvel has changed the way we watch movies. We have to keep watching each one as they come out if we want to keep up with the storyline that will eventually be shown in Avengers 2 in 2015 or so. The little clips and easter eggs they sprinkle in after the end credits in each individual hero’s film only makes it more necessary to see each one if one wants to get the whole story.

The style of marketing has made the series of films play out more like a series of comic books. We get multiple films that act as “comic book issues” for each character, then a big multi-spanning tie-in adventure with all of them in one. Which is appropriate, seeing as all of these tights-and-spandex crusaders originally spawned from the ink-pen page anyway. Things are coming full circle with the way these Marvel movies are playing out. Back to the roots – which is a trend all its own.

This was a natural outcome. Naturally films are changing in style and approach. As the world has grown more interactive, movies have changed in approach – this all reflects the 24/7, interconnected mentality going on. Everything has to be at full-speed all the time. There’s no room for downtime anymore in the news and the hype-train has to keep going at full speed, no stops until Bedlam, miles to go before sleep. Hype has to keep going. As cynical as it sounds, that IS a big part of why movies are so inter-connected and span so many various titles now. Money!

You can see more examples of movies trying to be other things in how we do young adult movies now. Three huge Y.A. franchises – Harry Potter, Twilight and the upcoming Hunger Games: Mockingjay – split up their final films into two movies, so as to make more money---cough, cough, I mean, preserve the integrity of the stories. You know. By making sure you see all the details the author of the book intended. That's why they had to stretch out The Hobbit into three movies, you know; because otherwise it just wouldn't have integrity. It wasn't about making money at all.

Picture from thewrap.com.

Personally I like movies better when they’re movies. The way these franchises are making out, it’s like they think they’re making books with visual accompaniment. The Hunger Games and Harry Potter films are structured like books rather than movies. They have chapters and cliffhangers, and people want to keep watching because they’re unsatisfied until they can see the rightful end of the story. That’s not how movies used to work (not all the time, at least, like now) – it’s interesting that they’ve changed to become this way.

"But...I wanted to see the rest!" Picture from vampirediaries.alloyentertainment.com.

It’s also interesting that so many book-to-movie transitions have gone so well these days. Between comic book adaptations like Watchmen to the aforementioned Hunger Games as well as more contemporary novels like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, filmmakers are trying harder to keep true to the source material when they adapt into movie forms. For die hard fans, that’s a great thing – if you really, really wanted to see a visual representation of Lisbeth Salander slicing up some pervert with no changes from how she did it in the original book, the movie will work perfectly for you – either version, Swedish or American.

Picture from stevenspielberg.wordpress.com.

Call me a heretic, but I always enjoy seeing a creative, visionary director make changes to a story for the silver screen. I find it interesting to see different interpretations of a story. Of course, many of them are crap, but you do get gems such as Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining here and there – that’s worth it.

Jack's happy. Why can't you be? Picture from blogs.indiewire.com.

Most scriptwriters or directors won’t go that route – with the increased Twitter and Facebook communication between creative artists and fans, it’s easier to know what fans want. Thus, there’s no excuse for dissonance between an artistic personality and his or her fanbase anymore – there should be no confusion. Though, I admit I could be partaking in some wishful thinking here.

Overall, the way movies are done now – in a more interactive format for the fans – isn’t good or bad, it’s just different. We will always have traditional, movies-for-movie-fans films, but now we have something else. Now we have movies that interact with the audience and sprawl into larger creations, becoming more than just a self-contained film. The Avengers movies are parts of a whole, and they act like issues of a comic book series. The Harry Potter/Hunger Games movies are visual reflections of their respective books – they have multiple chapters.

Movies aren’t just a fourth wall between the makers and the audience anymore – we’re not just consumers anymore. We play a more active role now. We commit ourselves to these sequels and we’re suckered into seeing all of them, even when we don’t like some of the ones that have come out. Movies are becoming a larger thing now – as they evolve, movies are experimenting with the format of filmmaking and release, and becoming something more epic and immersive in scope, if not necessarily in storytelling.

I hope the storytelling can reach the same quality as the effort put into arranging these films over multiple years, franchises and directors. That would be great. Right now though, things are in the hands of the people making the money. That can’t be denied. Personally I just hope this kind of experimentation with how movies are released doesn’t just degenerate into pure commercialism, as there are plenty of good films still coming out under what I’ve talked about here.

Case in point: Captain America: The Winter Soldier is an amazing movie that everyone should go see. Get on it now! What the hell are you waiting for, the fucking second coming of Christ to tell you to go see it?! Isn't my word good enough anymore?

Picture from fansided.com.

REVIEW: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Director: Marc Webb

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone

Website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0948470/

Finally, we have a Spider-Man film that really captures what the character and story are really about. This is a reboot of the Spider-Man franchise that I think was the best possible move they could have done, seeing as the Raimi films…well, they weren’t exactly anything to write home about. This one, directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, is the truest to the comics I’ve seen yet and a spectacular friggin’ movie to boot, maybe the best summer blockbuster we’ve seen this summer yet. Does that get your ears perked up? Let’s dig into why.

First, the acting is just great in this. Andrew Garfield was an odd choice to play Peter Parker, as he looked very little like what we always associate the character with being. But he does a really good job at playing both Peter as the sometimes-troubled and awkward high school student with a brilliant mind and Spider-Man as a witty, wisecracking vigilante. He’s not as outwardly geeky and soft-spoken as some past incarnations have been, but he feels more like a three dimensional, real kid, and that’s why I think this is the best Peter Parker we’ve seen on any screen yet.

The scenes where he’s discovering his powers are really cool and show the wonder of it combined with the awkwardness and absurdity that Peter no doubt feels – there are numerous bits where his newfound strength completely destroys everyday tasks like opening doors and brushing teeth. Hell, when Peter is going home on the subway right after, he wrecks an entire car and gets into a huge fight scene all by accident by hitting people when he does not mean to. There’s one scene where he’s just sitting on his bed, wide-eyed and half-crazy after seeing what he can do now, that just encapsulates everything that a normal kid would feel after having these things happen to him. It’s silent, wordless moments like this that are spotted throughout the film and really show me what a talent this kid is, and how well the director managed to use him.

The humanity of the character really comes out through Garfield’s emotive and spot-on performance. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, who despite playing the usual Emma Stone kind of performance – you know, the whole sassy and independent girl thing she does in every movie – this time the writing is strong and actually supports her very well. So she does a good job.

Another great performance is veteran actor Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, who just does a really great job at playing a parental figure for such a troubled kid – you get the tender side and a more strict side, as well as just a great sense of personality and wit about him. At the end of the day, you really, really like Uncle Ben in this movie. I liked all of these characters a lot. Even if you knew nothing about Spider-Man, you could like and really care about these characters as much as you have with any movie – that is the sign of great acting and great writing.

The setting and lighting are wonderful, with beautifully lit shots of New York and some very pulpy old school-style comic book-esque locations – witness the glowering green lights and the cavernous depths of the sewers where The Lizard makes his infernal concoctions, and in contrast, the Parker house, warm and full of all the things you’d expect from an aunt making delicious things in the kitchen to movie posters and camera equipment in Peter’s bedroom. So aesthetically the movie gets it right – small stuff, but it counts. The settings all reminded me of comic books in their layouts and how they were set up.

The real meat of the movie comes from the bigger moments, though, like any time when Spider-Man is doing his thing around the city. This movie rocks some great, funny dialogue for him and some cool scenes where he apprehends all these small time crooks with his webs and super-speed and strength – they are scenes you will find in anything Spider-Man related, but they’re a lot of fun here and stand up to the past 50 years of his history with ease. One of the better moments comes when he saves a kid from a burning vehicle – I won’t spoil much else, but the grace and power with which this scene is handled are just epic, and the scene is really, really cool. The finale is a fast-paced, boiling thriller of a set-up that just rules. A great, blood-pumping finale for a great film.

The film remains entertaining whether it’s about Spidey kicking the crap out of a crook, about Peter Parker interacting with Aunt May or Gwen Stacey and her family or about Peter’s quest to find Curt Connors and solve the mystery of what happened to his dad. That’s really the mark of a first-rate script and director. The Amazing Spider-Man is one of those great cinematic moments where everything just came together like magic for a real winner of a movie.

REVIEW: Hulk (2003)

Well, with The Avengers finally out and winning worldwide acclaim, it looks like superhero films have finally hit their stride and become worth talking about again – it’s been a long time coming with a lot of steep roads, but finally we have some viable superhero flicks to lead the genre and prove that it isn’t a big half-assed joke just made to cash in on the comic books. Indeed, we certainly have come a long way since movies like the 2003 Hulk film with Eric Bana, a movie so lame and so boring that it feels like you yourself are getting a radioactive zap straight to the brain. And yes, I did just use a joke that bad. I should be ashamed, but then again, I’m still better than the people who made THIS.

Director: Ang Lee

Starring: Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott

Website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/

I mean MAN this is a dull, plodding, hackneyed piece of nothing. Who knew you could make The Hulk so boring? It’s got all the elements you’d expect a Hulk film to have, but they’re done incredibly poorly, and mostly it will just put you to sleep. Eh. Let’s…try and get it over with, I guess…

We start off with a guy named David Banner doing illegal experiments without the government’s permission like experimenting on his own son – what a douchebag. He gets sacked rightfully, as what he’s doing is highly illegal. He starts to freak out and break shit and then immediately runs home to kill his son; what a champion father. We don’t exactly see what happens next, because the movie is as incoherent as your average meth addict, and just fades into another scene with main character Bruce Banner as a teenager about to go off to college and leave Woody, Buzz and all the other toys behind for the last time:

Maybe I got the wrong movie franchise...

Okay, seriously, what’s up with the flashbacks? Does this director just not think we’ll be able to understand The Hulk’s plot without showing us Bruce Banner’s past? And for that matter, why change the story like this? Bruce Banner was a normal guy who got caught up in radiation and became a big green monster. THAT’S IT. What is all this nonsense about his father conducting secret experiments on him and trying to kill him as a little kid? It’s just needlessly complex and dark.

So we finally get to the present day as we see Bruce Banner played by Eric Bana and his ex-girlfriend Betty, played by Jennifer Connelly, neither one of whom ever seems to give a shit about any of their lines throughout this thing. I’m serious, you could get cardboard cutouts to play these characters and you’d have the same level of emotional attachment. These two are ex boyfriend and girlfriend and it seems like this is supposed to be a point of contention between them, but the way Bana and Connelly act, it’s just a minor inconvenience to laugh about. So glad THAT riveting emotional character development was avoided!

They mosey around for a while exchanging some nonsensical dialogue and the scenes are transitioned horribly through schizophrenic drug induced hallucinations that look like stuff you’d see in a 1995 computer game. The whole thing is just too cluttered and claustrophobic, with short scenes broken up by tons of bright, flashy colors enough to give small Japanese children seizures. How am I supposed to be invested in this? It’s practically the cinematic equivalent of a hyperactive little girl on too much sugar!

So Banner and Betty do some more experiments until their dumbass friend accidentally breaks the machine and gets Banner infected with the radiation. It should kill him, but instead, mysteriously, he’s OK, and even better than before. He then gets visited by a creepy old Unabomber impersonator, his own crazy father who escaped from a mental ward and disguised himself as the janitor of the building, played by veteran actor Nick Nolte. How did they get him to do this? Well, I imagine a lot of horrible, horrible blackmail was involved. And what’s up with the three random dogs he has with him all the time? Is this supposed to be taken seriously?

The true picture of villainy; a crazy homeless man from your local subway with a bunch of weird dogs around him for no reason.

Nolte hams it up in front of the camera as he’s going to do for the entire movie – this guy is seriously just terrible here, and it’s baffling because I know he can do good in other movies. What happened, was he just told to act as poorly as possible? I also love how he tries to get all self righteous and finger-pointing at Banner for not being a good scientist or whatever when HE was arrested for malpractice and experimenting on humans and then put into a mental ward. Not exactly in the position to chastise others, are you pal?

And what is also so strange about this is…HOW THE HELL DID HE GET HIRED BY A GOVERNMENT-FUNDED SCIENTIFIC BUILDING? He has a criminal history! Do they just not do any background checks on their employees? “Hey, I know this guy was arrested thirty years ago for doing illegal experiments and has been in a mental ward ever since, but I really think he’s perfect for our scientist building as a janitor! NOTHING BAD could possibly result from this!” USE YOUR BRAINS YOU MONGOLOIDS.

Banner turns into the Hulk and destroys the lab, causing everything to get shut down by the government and Banner to be arrested the next morning. Betty’s father the military general (Sam Elliott) comes in and arrests Banner despite Betty’s pleas otherwise – he’s ONLY a danger to all mankind as long as he’s free, after all! Why do some parents have to be so inconsiderate?

That night we see David Banner’s most diabolical plot yet…three rabid super-dogs, one of which is a French poodle. I swear I am not making that up:

Reminds me of The Breed...

Or, no, wait. It's like Cujo II:  Who Let the Dogs Out! There we go!

I…can’t tell if this is stupid or genius. But we get a pretty decent action scene I guess, remarkable enough for the fact that it involves a demonic French poodle, but decent enough otherwise, too. Then they go back and we find out that Betty really wasn’t so loyal after all, as despite the fact that Banner helped her, she tranquilizes him and lets the military take him. What a whore.

They take him to some compound where of course they NEVER do anything stupid like…just letting him walk around all he wants with his ex girlfriend with no guards or protection, thus putting everyone in danger…oh wait, they DO do that. What a bunch of morons! But at least they’re prepared for a Hulk break-out in case they do some experiments on him underwater and he gets angry and breaks out…oh, wait, they’re NOT prepared at all, and have to run around like their heads are up their asses just to make sure he doesn’t kill them.

Aren't you glad the US is paying taxes in this world to fund idiotic experiments like this, which could have literally been orchestrated better by a five year old? How is it THIS HARD to NOT waste valuable resources? If you want to make The Hulk come out, how about actually getting prepared for it, and setting up damage-proof settings where he won't destroy anything? But I guess that would make too much sense. Instead these guys just love to run around like turkeys with their heads cut off while The Hulk demolishes all their hard work. But hey, whatever works, ya know?!

Is anything these guys do sensible or smart AT ALL? I’ll just spoil that for you and say no, no it isn’t.

So the Hulk breaks out of the compound and goes on a rampage all around the desert and even through the Grand Canyon. And okay, even I have to admit, this is the only good part of the movie, with some excellent scenery and even some decent action for once. Seeing the Hulk jump around the Grand Canyon is pretty awesome.

But the movie RUINS it soon after by having David Banner, Bruce’s father and now a crazy Unabomber wannabe, talk to Betty alone and try to get her to let him talk to Bruce again, even offering to turn himself in. Now, in any rational universe, the military’s response would be “No, you crazy freak, we’re just arresting you and putting you back in that mental institution for the rest of your life.” However, in THIS MOVIE, the military just goes along with his demands and agrees to them!

…

…….

…………….

ARE THEY OUT OF THEIR MINDS? What kind of military is this? They ACTUALLY let him see his son after everything he’s done? I mean, he’s only an escaped mental patient locked up for doing dangerous experiments on human beings. It’s not like he’s, oh I don’t know, CRAZY or anything, right? This makes no sense! What kind of military organization would ever negotiate with a hostage like this? What do they gain? Brownie points for reuniting a son and his father, even though the father is a known lunatic and could do anything to activate his son’s Hulk persona and sabotage everything the military themselves is working for? Are they just TRYING to screw up as much as possible? Is that the experiment they're doing; how to royally mess up everything as much as possible? I’m sorry, I don’t get it, and this movie has officially crossed the line into complete WTF territory, never to return. Movie, YOU NEED HELP.

So anyway, now we have a second climax which involves David Banner biting on a big electric wire and turning into, well, what looks like a big pile of Transformer droppings:

Noogie noogie noogie!

They fight some more and David turns into…oh, do you even care anymore?

I really don't, so I'm not going to bother explaining this part.

Then the military bombs them and leaves them for dead without even checking to SEE if they’re dead or not – have I mentioned I’m not exactly enthralled with the way the military acts in this movie? – and we’re done, right? No? There’s still another ’1 year later’ epilogue scene? Oh come on, JUST END ALREADY, you big pile of green garbage!

Sigh. So apparently a year later, Jennifer Connelly still can’t act, as when she says she still loves Bruce, she sounds like she’s just saying she lost her shoes or something – don’t get TOO emotional there honey; don’t want to actually make us give a shit there or something! And we see Bruce himself in the jungle with some native tribe, getting robbed by some thieves. He glares at them and says, in a foreign language, “You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”

So, just to recap that, the signature line of the Hulk series is only uttered in a foreign language at the very end of the movie – it’s not THAT BIG of a deal or anything, but it just points out how much this movie utterly fails.

And fail it does! This was crap. Aside from the awful special effects, acting and storyline, it was just so cluttered with nonsensical transitions and too many plotlines for what should have been a relatively simple movie. I didn’t really get a chance to mention it in the review, but this movie is also really, really friggin’ pretentious and ponderous, with far too many faux-philosophical ramblings from Nick Nolte’s character that just get on my nerves with how self-indulgent they are. For psychological superhero movies, The Dark Knight was still a long ways off.

So yeah, this sucks. Go see the 2008 one instead. It isn’t anything amazing, but it’s at least a real movie, unlike this haphazard collection of psychedelic music video images and pretentious college-student speeches. And I think that’s a big plus!

Images copyright of their original owners.

The Avengers (2012)

Starring: A bunch of people

Director: Joss Whedon

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848228/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_(2012_film)

Many of you have never heard of this small independent film that explores the deep realms of the human psyche by analysing the most intellectually intriguing phrase of our time: "HULK SMASH!!!!!"

Or it just might be about something completely different...

The movie starts off with Loki (Tom Hiddleston) coming to Earth with the intent of becoming its supreme ruler. It is up to a familiar group of superheroes, including Iron Man, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Black Widow, and Hawkeye (respectively played by Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, and Jeremy Renner) under the guidance of Nick Furry (Samuel L. Jackson) to stop him. However, they first have to learn to work together as their conflicting personalities soon become apparent.

Umm...it's awesome! Nope, I don't have anything to add to that; I think I've made myself pretty clear. Okay, fine, if you insist...

I was expecting this movie to be pretty good even though I have mixed feelings about the previous Marvel movies that preceded it. "Captain America" was great and "The Incredible Hulk" was enjoyable. The "Iron Man" movies were pretty good though I feel like they could have been better. "Thor"...was okay, but I say that generously since it had major flaws. Still, I figured this movie would take enough of the best elements from each of them and be able to create a competent story. And...it did! It really just goes all out: it makes the most of the characters and how they interact with each other, it has a number of funny moments that are actually funny, it has some good serious moments, and (perhaps most importantly) it has lots and lots and LOTS of action!!! What more can you want?!!!

That's pretty much it. I really can't elaborate on it any further, at least not without spoiling it. Too be honest, I can't really criticize it either. The only part I really questioned was how the characters seemed be clued in on a bunch of the major details about each other and the situation at hand. But they explain how the film takes place about a year after the other ones ended and given how persistent Nick Furry has been about keeping tabs on people (and how high profile some of their individual circumstances were in the media) its seems logical that they would all have a basic idea of what was going on. Which is good because it minimizes the number of scenes needed to do all that explaining and cuts straight to the good parts!

So...yeah! It is a really solid, excellent movie. Most of you who are reading this are probably going to see it anyway or have already done so, but if you are on the fence for some reason, I definitely recommend it. I can't think of any other superhero movie that will be able to beat this one this summer...

Hmm...forgot about that one...

P.S.: As you would expect, there is a scene after the main closing credits that...okay, I will not spoil it. And if you wait until the end of rest of the credits, there is something else. Just in case you wanted to know.

Review: Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) TH

An Uncle Sam who gets his hands dirty

While other superheroes are just out to stop thugs and fight crime for what the police and average citizens can't handle, instead Captain America is a political savior with a chunk of the world in his sights: someone who has a knack for heroics, team leadership and is capable of changing the tides of war with not only his brawn but his determination and unselfish attitude.

"Captain America: The First Avenger" is set during World War II and like "X-Men: First Class" it creates an alternate universe with shared commonalities to the past, as what's unfolding isn't just working in the shadows like, say, "National Treasure," rather it's stepping out to the light to make its own substitute history with different names and faces. In doing so it manages to pose a series of what if questions: What if Germany perfected scientific weapons before the US? What if one man could actually make a significant difference in war? What if they had more advanced artillery and technology in the '40s and how would it have panned out otherwise? Hitler is only mentioned with mock and referenced talk, but instead the main Axis bad guy named Johann Schmidt (Weaving) is at the forefront with possibly more ambition than the tiny mustached dictator could hope. Nazis and swastikas aren't delved into but instead an organization/political party/cult named "HYDRA" with a different but still threatening emblem to wave.

A scrawny guy named Steve Rogers (Evans) from Brooklyn, who has the underdeveloped frame of an average 13 year old but the courage of a warrior, is doing all but holding his breath to enlist in the military so he can serve his country despite health issues and a Hobbit stature. After continually getting denied, he gains his chance when meeting an honest man named Dr. Abraham Erskine (Tucci) who's an idealist scientist who sees potential in Rogers for a new experiment. The serum can't be used on just anyone as it will transform the person into an unstoppable super soldier as well as amplify their temperament from bad to really bad, and good to extremely good. Thus when the ultra-patriot-to-be comes out a taller, bulkier one-man-army, not to mention a lady magnet, he has the perfect antithesis of a rival with Red Skull on the side of HYDRA who uses his powers for gain and domination.

Like "Green Lantern" this thoroughly concentrated on character development, including what it means to have these awesome strengths and how to direct and use them to their maximum potential. Though when it came time to get his hands dirty, the antagonist vs protagonist element seemed somewhat straightforward, glossed over and easy to the unchallenged Captain. The only moment the brain kicks in is when a scene is too vague rather than being too complex. From doing campaign pledges for war bonds and gimmicky shows that include American flag dressed woman dancing to hooting soldiers, Cap gets heckled off stage by real combatants and decides to put his abilities to the test to save his friend Bucky (Sebastian Stan) and fellow soldiers held prisoner. Soon enough with the help of Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) with his uniform, he has a motley crew of fighters that go out on missions that somehow have a detrimental effect on the war effort, yet it's never fully explained how that's possible. It makes things extremely simple and that part of the story only seems there to do nothing but perpetuate fast flying, combustive action.

Red Skull, apart from his intensely commanding appearance and dress, wasn't as outlined and the performance came across at times like a run-of-the-mill, snide villain who ends up being somewhat predictable. Not to mention some of the delivery was scripted to a fault as some lines felt preplanned and a lost cause to the quick pacing. Chris Evans went for sincerity due to toning down his usual showmanship and humor from past films like "Fantastic Four" and instead lets others take on one-liners like the hilarious Tommy Lee Jones who plays the no nonsense, southern Colonel Chester Phillips. Evans performs the role as somewhat naive to the world at large from knowing exactly what he wants and everything else along the way being second, such as dames and his own well-being. Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) shows up as the physically attractive agent on the surface but underneath is confident and not to be underestimated. There's a budding love angle but fortunately the picture never slows down to entirely make it a distracting cliche that every blockbuster summer flick "must" have.

"Captain America: The First Avenger" never lets up from being relentlessly theatrical as a number of scenes are set up with the intention of going for a grand show and timed out unveiling rather than attempting to create a piece of naturalism or history lesson. Despite its exaggeration and garish ways, it indeed works as a mostly simple and entertaining experience with a little food for thought about Cap's little guy background and eventually plenty of action fodder to give it energy. The 3-D wasn't completely maximized to its full potential but it did have its moments of shining, such as a few particular scenes that for the first time actually made me flinch with his iconic shield coming right out of the screen! The film moves steadily along and doesn't feel its two hour time length partly due to frequent location changes. The effort put into the art direction and set pieces while melding CGI positively showed as they were generally constructed down to the finest detail. In terms of fire power in a war movie, this shuffles between guns that shoot bullets and fictitious ones with beams of energy, as well as flame throwers and tanks, and, of course, more fiery explosions than can be counted on fingers and toes in a packed theater.

Director: Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, Jurassic Park III, The Wolfman)
Starring: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Hayley Atwell, Stanley Tucci, Sebastian Stan, Dominic Cooper, Neal McDonough
Website: IMDB

REVIEW: X-Men: First Class (2011)

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Starring: James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Fassbender

Website: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0891216/

This was a surprise to me, as superhero movies have been getting stagnant. I didn’t expect to have one actually pull me in that wasn’t a Christopher Nolan Batman movie in these modern times of CGI and special effects and 3D. But here we have the new X-Men movie, quite a pleasant surprise for sure, and I found myself very entertained here.

The reason this film works is that it actually does focus more on the characters and their various journeys than on some kind of superfluous need to tell a superhero story, even when there were no ideas. Director James Vaughn previously directed the excellent Kick-Ass, which was another superhero movie with great writing, relatable characters and a powerful, inviting sweep, and so you can see where he's coming from when you watch this movie. This is a superhero movie, but it’s one that takes the high road and doesn’t try to check off the various tropes of its genre before getting into the substance of the story first. First Class is a smart, snappy action movie that has enough drama to interest the more prudent among you, and enough comedy to make sure it doesn’t sink into a mire of modernist depression. It is well rounded and feels wholesome and complete.

The film focuses on Xavier, played by James McAvoy, who is a great actor and really pulls off the character with style and passion, making you care about what he says and what he’s doing. I was really impressed by this performance, as he pretty much turned one of the less interesting X-Men characters into someone I found very intriguing, and who I wanted to see win. Erik, or Magneto, played by Michael Fassbender, also puts out a great performance. The chemistry between the two of them on screen as friends was very believable and actually one of the best parts of the movie – I wanted to see more of it. They’re both hugely charismatic and enjoyable to watch.

The other main character is Mystique, or Raven as she was known, played by Jennifer Lawrence, who also starred in the superlative Winter’s Bone last year. In this film’s universe she met Xavier as a young child, and stayed with him all throughout his growing up. She’s uncomfortable with her mutant state and wants to look normal, although the film’s progression shows her slowly shedding those ideals and embracing opposite ones. She’s a very well done character and I enjoyed seeing her progression. A great performance on all counts.

So yeah, the film’s other characters aren’t quite as fleshed out, but they’re still cool. They introduce a few new X-Men not even from the comics. The film goes on a bit long, but it packs in a lot of great scenes like the early ones with all the kids together for the first time, and the several scenes in the middle where they're all training - very creative and fun. The ending battle scene is actually really awesome, which is refreshing, as a lot of movies like Thor and Iron Man really skimp out on having memorable finales. The movie’s main message is a coming of age one. These kids don’t know where they’ll end up yet, and although the viewer does, it doesn’t make the ride any less engaging, because of the strong acting and well told story. So go see this. It’s fun, effective and involving. Recommended.