Tag Archives: marvel

‘Black Widow’ Review

Leave a reply

You know what they say, better late than never!

“Black Widow” is the long-awaited (and oft-delayed) solo film for the titular superhero played by Scarlett Johansson, and follows a mission that ends up reuniting her with her family (Florence Pugh, David Harbour, and Rachel Weisz). O-T Fagbenle, William Hurt, and Ray Winstone also star while Cate Shortland directs.

For years fans were asking for a Black Widow solo film, but it took the success of 2017’s “Wonder Woman” and the explosion in MCU popularity to finally have the project greenlit. It marks the final starring role for Scarlett Johansson as the character, who like Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans is leaving the franchise after a decade of wearing tights, and is a fittingly smaller-scale Marvel movie that does everything it needs to while still offering some fun new surprises.

Scarlett Johansson has been one of the best parts of the Marvel Universe since her debut as Black Widow (aka Natasha Romanoff) in 2010’s “Iron Man 2,” and it’s nice to finally get to see her run the show instead of being a sidekick or part of an ensemble. Here we get a little more intimate look at her as a person instead of an Avenger, with little moments like her quietly driving along while listening to the pop song “Cheap Thrills” by Sia. She continues to be a badass when it counts, but part of what has made Natasha one of the MCU’s most loved characters is her personality, and Johansson keeps that dry wit and warmth.

The star, however, is Florence Pugh, whose star power only continues to grow after having a 1994 Jim Carrey-type year in 2019, coming onto the (mainstream) scene with “Fighting with My Family,” “Midsommar,” and then “Little Women,” the last of which landed her an Academy Award nomination. Here Pugh plays Yelena Belova, Natasha’s younger sister, herself a member of the same assassin-training course, and steals the show. Pugh carries all the emotional scenes of the film, trying to come to terms with the fact her youth was a charade and her life has not been her own, but also has some laugh-out-loud moments (“this would be a cool way to die” she says to herself as an avalanche is approaching). Pugh is set to appear in the Disney+ show “Hawkeye” and will surely be one of the main focuses of the MCU moving forward and I couldn’t be more excited.

Overall, the action in the film is some of the best that we’ve seen in the MCU. Outside maybe the “Captain America” films (namely “Winter Soldier”), this is the most brutal hand-to-hand combat we’ve gotten. You hear bones crunch and the impact of knives slashing, and it really is one of the most enjoyable Marvel films action-wise that we’ve gotten in a long while. The special effects can be a bit wonky (there are several explosions that look right out of a PlayStation 3 cutscene), but they never take you out of the film.

The writing is hit and miss, with the banter between Natasha and Yelena being the amusing Marvel quipping but the dialogue-driven scenes between multiple characters being a tad bit slow. The MCU has also always had a problem with its bad guys and this may be the weakest example yet, with Taskmaster looking cool and being a physical threat, but the motivations and development of the villain organization being a bit lacking.

“Black Widow” is one of the better MCU solo outings, and just like how “Luca” is “lesser” Pixar doesn’t mean the lower-stakes make it bad. This is a very good Marvel film that does everything it needs to do and offers some closure to the Black Widow character while showing the impact she made on the future of the franchise. Johansson and Pugh are great and the fight scenes are incredibly entertaining, and it is just nice to see a feature-length Marvel movie for the first time in two years; it’s almost a microcosm for us all finally getting back to normal.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Captain Marvel’ is Pretty Fun Stuff

Ok. I’m a big enough man to admit when I’m wrong.

“Captain Marvel” is the 21st installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the first film to feature Brie Larson as the titular hero. Samuel L. Jackson also stars as a younger version of his Nick Fury character (thanks to the wonders of de-aging technology) while Ben Mendelsohn, Djimon Hounsou, Annette Bening, Clark Gregg and Jude Law also star; Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck direct.

So, there has been a lot of talk surrounding this film for the past year and because its 2019 and nothing makes sense anymore, most of the talk is dumb and holds no weight. Brie Larson and co-director Anna Boden have been on record multiple times stating that this is a feminist film, and that made large groups of Twitter trolls spam the comment sections online. Conversely, trolls on the opposite side attacked anyone who pointed out the objectively bland (and widely criticized) trailers for the film, which were all stale and didn’t do Larson any favors selling the character. I was very vocal with my distaste for the trailers and like many people was nervous about the film and the character’s place in the MCU, but am happy to report that most all my fears ended up being irrational.

One of the complaints about the trailers and worries towards the film was Brie Larson. She is an Oscar winning actress who has also shown her ability to be comedic (“21 Jump Street” and “Trainwreck”), however in the trailers she came off as cold, stoic and unwilling to smile. I’m not sure if this was an attempt by Marvel to troll fans or what, but Larson’s performance in the film is actually full of grins, deadpan one-liners and a range of emotion. She has some nice back-and-forths with Samuel L. Jackson and Jude Law, and on more than one occasion is given the chance to get choked up as a woman trying to figure out her mysterious past.

Speaking of Samuel L. Jackson, his 70-year-old self is playing a 45-year-old version of himself. Thanks to de-aging technology, similar to what has been done in previous Marvel films but never to this scale (and what we will see done to Robert de Niro and Al Pacino in “The Irishman”), Jackson appears like he did back in his “Jackie Brown” and “Pulp Fiction” days, and his performance (and the facial recreation) are both entertaining. It looks less convincing on Clark Gregg’s Agent Coulson (it looks like a CGI character wearing a human mask), but on Jackson you forget you’re not actually watching a 40-year-old man pretty quickly.

Aside from Jackson’s de-aging the effects are typical Marvel, with some designs and fights being really well-done and polished and others (namely, greenscreen) appearing clearly fake to the point of distraction. Also, someone needs to tell the people at Marvel how to light a film set. Nearly all their films (save for “Black Panther”) have no true creative camera angles or lighting aspects, with most scenes taking place in an evenly-lit space with a grey hue in a shot-reverse-shot. “Black Panther” took risks and took its time; at the end of the day “Captain Marvel” just feels like a cookie-cutter film out of the MCU oven.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It surprised me in ways I didn’t think it would, and while I hope she doesn’t suddenly become the face of Marvel and save everyone’s lives single-handily in “Avengers: Endgame” I enjoyed Brie Larson’s turn as a not-so-well-known superhero. Is it forgettable? Probably. Is it as good or inspirational as the likes of a “Wonder Woman?” Not for me, at least. But it’s fun, and in a cinematic world where half of life in the universe was just wiped out of existence, maybe a little fun is a good thing.

Critic’s Rating: 8/10

‘Venom’ is a Mess of a Disappointment

I don’t know what else I expected from a studio like Sony…

“Venom” is the second film to feature the titular antihero (following 2007’s “Spider-Man 3”), and follows Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) as he is exposed to the alien symbiote and gains superpowers. Michelle Williams, Riz Ahmed, Scott Haze and Reid Scott also star as Ruben Fleischer directs.

A Venom film had been in the talks for years, both before and after his appearance in “Spider-Man 3,” and this rendition was finally confirmed in March 2017 as part of Sony’s new “Marvel Universe” (different than Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe, but that is an entire different can of worms). It was promised to be rated R, sticking to the dark and violent nature of the character, but just a few weeks before its release Sony announced that it would be rated PG-13 in order to possibly accompany a cross-over with Spider-Man in future films (something Marvel and Disney have strongly implied they won’t allow). Combine this with the fact star Tom Hardy went on record (before backtracking) that his favorite 40 minutes of the film were cut and there were alarms going off all over the place. And where there is smoke there is fire, and it turns out to be of the dumpster variety.

I am a fan of Venom. I never read many of his comics but growing up I always liked it when he showed up in a Spider-Man show, and didn’t hate Topher Grace’s portrayal of Eddie Brock in “Spider-Man 3.” So when it was announced Hardy, fresh off an Oscar nomination for “The Revenant,” would play the character I got excited. And Hardy is (mostly) the only thing in the film that actually works.

His dynamic with the Venom character is often fun, as it is a voice in his head that only he can hear. Much like this summer’s “Upgrade” (one of the year’s better films, please seek it out!), Eddie is hesitant to hurt people so when Venom takes control of his body and begins to use humans as a baseball bat on others he is confused and outwardly apologizes to his victims. There are some laughs and some creative fight sequences, although you can tell some of the Venom kills (namely when he goes to bite off a character’s head) were cut and clipped to get that bloodless PG-13 rating. And the fact Sony made this PG-13 (especially after saying it would be R) is almost infuriating since it was done simply with the dollar sign in mind, yet we’ve seen the R-rated “Deadpool” films each make over $700 million.

Every other actor here is either wasted and/or trying their best, but the script is so clunky and reliant on exposition that they feel like cardboard cutouts. The evil head of a sketchy corporation? Check. The ex-girlfriend who comes back into the frame when her new boyfriend tries to help our main character? You know it. The member of the bad guy’s staff who has a sudden change of heart? Oh you know she’s in here. But none of the dialogue is engaging and the narrative just jumps from plot point to plot point with little flow (Venom doesn’t even appear for the first hour of this hour-42 minute film).

The special effects are mostly not all that special, with some of them actually looking straight-up like a PlayStation 3 cutscene. This was made on a “modest” $100 million budget (the average superhero film costs between $150-200 million nowadays) but this film really does look and play like it should have come out in 2007, before “The Dark Knight” and Marvel changed the superhero game.

“Venom” has occasional moments of intrigue or amusement, and Hardy and Venom’s dynamic and interactions are just good enough to make me want to see more of these “Marvel Universe” if they can get a script (and tone) that fits the character. But much like Tom Cruise’s “The Mummy” last year, a film that was supposed to kick off the “Dark Universe” for Universal, “Venom” just feels uninspired, bland and all-too-often is ugly to look at. The tagline for this film is “the world has enough superheroes” and after seeing this I think we have enough antiheros, too.

Critic’s Grade: C–

Sony

‘Ant-Man and the Wasp’ is a Predictably Lightweight but Fun Marvel Romp

Given the cultural significance of “Black Panther” and the sheer scope of “Avengers: Infinity War,” I feel this one was always going to play small-scale third fiddle…

“Ant-Man and the Wasp” is the sequel to the 2015 film “Ant-Man” and features Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lilly reprising their roles as the title characters. Michael Peña, Bobby Cannavale, Judy Greer, Tip “T.I.” Harris, David Dastmalchian, Abby Ryder Fortson and Michael Douglas also return as Walton Goggins, Hannah John-Kamen, Randall Park, Michelle Pfeiffer and Laurence Fishburne join the cast. In the film, Ant-Man and the Wasp must hunt down a stolen piece of technology in order to try and save Douglas’ wife from being trapped in the quantum realm (in layman’s terms, she shrunk so small she has been stuck between two atoms for 30 years). Peyton Reed returns to direct.

I wasn’t the biggest fan of the first “Ant-Man” film and actually think it is one of Marvel’s weaker outings. It just is never as inventive, clever or funny as it thinks it is and plays out like an “Iron Man” remake on a lesser scale. I wasn’t expecting too much from this sequel, even if Marvel is on a streak right now of putting out films that are changing the superhero landscape for good (“Thor: Ragnorok” and the aforementioned “Black Panther” and “Infinity War”), but maybe it was those low expectations that made “Ant-Man and the Wasp” pretty enjoyable.

Paul Rudd is perfect in most everything he does and is really one of the only actors who could pull off a superhero like Ant-Man. He is funny and reluctant yet brave and loyal and is able to have natural chemistry with anyone he is sharing a scene with. Michael Peña, a fan favorite from the first film, returns and again has some standout moments of ADD energy while Michael Douglas is given a few more chances to earn some laughs while also carrying the film’s more emotional scenes. Newcomer Randall Park was probably my favorite addition playing the FBI agent assigned to keep an eye on Rudd following his house arrest, and he without a doubt provides the film with its funniest moments (side note: get me a Park and Rudd “Odd Couple” spin-off show now, please).

Aside from Park, all the newcomers to the cast feel like useless additions that are only there to push the plot. Hannah John-Kamen is the film’s main antagonist but her goals almost feel like a side quest and really only exist to give the film a faux sense of urgency, while Michelle Pfeiffer and Laurence Fishburne portray people from Douglas’ past that, while the mention of their characters is important to the plot, their actual presence is not.

And that is really the film’s biggest issue, that there is no urgency or real weight. The entire plot takes place over about a day and there are certain characters that feel added for the sake of runtime or because the producers wanted to see a tiny car turn into a big car and hurt some bad guys.

That being said, the action sequences are cool (as far, few and in between as they sometimes seem to be) and the going from big-to small-to big again gag is still amusing form the first film.

“Ant-Man and the Wasp” was never going to mean as much, have as much to say or be as charismatic as any of Marvel’s other tentpoles but that’s OK. Watching it is more often than not a blast and even if it fades quickly from mind a little (no ant pun intended) mid-summer distraction to hold us over until “Avengers 4” isn’t so much of a bad thing.

Critic’s Grade: B

Walt Disney

‘Ant-Man’ a Fun but Frustrating Marvel Ride

Ant-Man_posterIf nothing else, this is proof that Paul Rudd makes everything bearable.

“Ant-Man” is the latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it stars Paul Rudd as the titular superhero. Armed with a suit that gives him the ability to shrink, career burglar Scott Lang (Rudd) is recruited by an aging scientist (Michael Douglas) to pull off a heist that will save the world from the scientist’s ex-protégée (Corey Stoll). Peyton Reed directs.

There was a lot of behind-the-scenes drama before “Ant-Man” even began filming. Originally, Edgar Wright was supposed to write and direct the film, however left after those pesky “creative differences” arose with the studio. So Marvel brought in Adam McKay (known for directing Will Ferrell flicks) to rewrite the script with Rudd, and “Yes Man” director Peyton Reed to helm the project. It was clear that they were trying to go heavier on the comedy than the action with “Ant-Man,” which may be where the film’s biggest pluses, and faults, lie.

The film is a bit frustrating in that it does a lot right, and creates a fun ride for the audience, but at the same time bogs itself down with a cliché and sloppy narrative. For every step forward “Ant-Man” takes, it takes one back. The biggest problem I have with the film is that essentially the first half, if not more so, is exposition and explanation. We are introduced to the characters, and rightfully so, but the movie beats us over the head with facts repeatedly, like how Rudd is a good guy who just can’t go straight, and how Douglas needs to make sure his research isn’t duplicated.

The film just feels cookie-cutter, and it feels that way because it is. The villain of the film (Stoll, known for “House of Cards”) is one big, bald cliché: the ex-protégée is angry at his former mentor and tries to get back at him. He then creates a bigger and badder version of the hero’s suit, and the two must face off (if that sounds like the ending to “Iron Man” it’s because it is). Not too much about “Ant-Man” felt refreshing or new, and one can only imagine how much more energetic it would have been had Wright (“Shaun of the Dead”) had stayed on as director.

That’s not to say the film doesn’t have its positives. Rudd is as charming as ever as our leading man; I’m pretty sure he could make reading the Wall Street Journal while eating a bowl of Fruit Loops into comedy gold. His wit and charisma save some scenes from feeling bogged down, and is believable in the action sequences. Michael Douglas turns in an entertaining performance as well, playing a man who truly cares about protecting his research because it is what’s best for humanity, not just for him.

Director Reed, like the film itself, is a mixed bag. He has a career in comedy, and most of the humor scenes are handled well; nothing ever feels too awkward or out of place. However it is the narrative and camera work that seemed slacking, which makes sense seeing as this is Reed’s first big-budget action flick. Most of the film is just build-up and preparation for the big heist, and when that finally comes it under-delivers. The film never truly flows well, and that usually falls at the fault of the man in charge.

“Ant-Man” is far from a bad movie, and it isn’t quite a failure for Marvel, but it certainly is one of their weaker films (I doubt anything will ever beat out “Thor 2” for their worst). Rudd and Douglas keep the film watchable, and some of the abilities they give Ant-Man are creative, but all these positives are almost knocked out by a tedious pace, formulaic plot and stereotypical supporting characters.

The film’s tagline is “Heroes Don’t Get Any Bigger Than Ant-Man.” Well they may not get bigger, but they certainly get better.

Critics Rating: 5/10

Variety

Variety

From ‘Avengers’ to ‘Thor 2’, Let’s Rank the Marvel Movies

With the release of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” it is only natural to create a list ranking all the Marvel movies so far. Because why have your own opinion when you can read mine, right? From 11 to number one, here is how the Avenger movies stack up in my book.

11.) THOR: THE DARK WORLD

I think this one is universally accepted as the weakest entry in the franchise, and is the only genuinely bad film of the series to date. People said the first “Thor” was forced and felt obligatory (more on that in a second), but this one made its predecessor look like the epitome of Marvel movies and how they should be. It is dumb, noisy and boring, and features a material with a changing list of abilities. It really felt like nothing but a cash grab for the entire runtime. Thank God they’re making a third one, right? [sighhh]

thor-the-dark-world

Variety

10.) CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

Many things in this one work, however there are a lot of aspects that simply don’t. It features some fun 1940’s World War II scenery, not to mention the whole scrawny Steve Rogers thing was well-done, but at times felt disjointed, featured a material with a plot-reliant list of powers (seeing a pattern?), and essentially was one big movie trailer for the “Avengers”.

captain-america-300x199

ScreenRant

9.) THOR

It is a lot of fun, and thanks to director Kenneth Branagh has a nice Shakespearian flare about it. Forget that Loki’s plot doesn’t make sense when you think about it for more than a minute and that most everything that happens is negated by the next film. It still is light years better than its sequel.

thor

 8.) THE INCREDIBLE HULK

Before Mark Ruffalo was turning green, Edward Norton starred as everyone’s favorite physicist with an anger issue. The film features a fun villain (Tim Roth’s Abomination) and was the first real hint that the Marvel Cinematic Universe was going to actually come to fruition.

the-incredible-hulk-movie

7.) IRON MAN 2

Sure, this film has its flaws and is nowhere near as good as its predecessor, but it is too much fun to hate. Downey’s charm is impossible to resist and let’s be honest: this is still a way better sequel than “Thor 2” (yep, I’m just going to keep bashing).

Iron-Man-2-Still-War-Machine-Mark-V-570x320

ScreenRant

6.) GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

Now we’re getting into good-near-great territory. When this came out last year, few knew what it was; much less that it was a part of the Marvel Universe. However 9 months and $775 million later, you would be hard-pressed to find someone who hasn’t seen the misadventures of Rocket and Groot. It is random and colorful and just a lot of fun.

Variety

Variety

5.) AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON

It may not be the redefining superhero film some were hoping for, and may feature one of those darn ability-changing materials, but it is honestly hilarious and features some of the most ingenious and entertaining action sequences I’ve seen in a long time.

Variety

Variety

4.) THE AVENGERS

I’m not a fanboy of this film like it seems most people are, I recognize its flaws (like its darn use of an ability changing—forget it), but it was able to fit six superheroes into one film seamlessly, and was immense fun to boot.

Variety

Variety

3.) IRON MAN 3

This is where people may scratch their heads and/or get upset, depending on how much of a comic book fan they are. I personally loved this film, thanks in large part to director Shane Black’s writing. It is clever, self-referential and had some nice twists. It’s been two years; let’s stop pretending that one scene ruined this entire movie.

Variety

Variety

2.) CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER

I adore this film. I saw it three times in theaters alone. It blew me away. It is everything the first “Captain America” was not, and in all the best ways. It is perfectly directed, cleverly written and immensely entertaining. It could be argued that it could be the top choice on the list, and I would have no arguments. It’s that much fun.

Variety

Variety

However it is not number one, because that title belongs to…

1.) IRON MAN

And here it is, the one that started it all. I remember seeing the trailers for this one and thinking it looked dumb, and leaving the theater floored. It was nothing like I had ever seen before, and remains, in my humble opinion, the greatest comic book movie ever made (“what about ‘The Dark Knight’?!” Oh, stop with that nonsense). It reintroduced the world to Robert Downey Jr., and seven years later I think we are all the better for it.

robert-downey-jr-tony-stark

There’s my list of the Marvel movies from top to bottom. I am excited to see how “Ant-Man” (the final film in Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe) plays out this July, mostly just because Paul Rudd is the man. However the film I really can’t wait for is “Captain America: Civil War”, which drops next May. Honestly, “Batman v Superman” is cool and all, but I am more pumped to see Iron Man take on Captain America, mostly because that film isn’t being directed by Zach Snyder…

Reaction to Spider-Man/Marvel Announcement

Leave a reply

In the late hours of Monday night, Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios announced a deal that will allow Spider-Man to appear in the Marvel Universe, while Sony will still produce his individual films.

This sent fanboys around the internet into a frenzy of happiness.

Basically, this is long overdue, and while it is fantastic and exciting news (one could say the news is…amazing [high fives self]), it does make me think of a few things.

First things first, this is likely the signal of the end of the Andrew Garfield-led “Amazing Spider-Man” franchise. When we last saw his Spidey, he was swinging a manhole cover at Paul Giamatti’s Rhino and the screen cut to black. If that ending was frustrating and ambiguous back in May 2014, imagine how it is now conceived as the end of a franchise.

Variety

Variety

I’m going to assume that Rhino killed Spider-Man and that is why we didn’t see the actual battle, and why there will be no 3rd film. It is the only thing that will make that ending make even a little bit of sense moving forward.

In 10 years, who will care about these two movies, much less even remember them? Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy already has cemented its place in cinematic history. Not only is it one of the best superhero series of all-time, if not movie trilogies, period, but it harkened the beginning of superhero films as we know them today. “Spider-Man 2” remains arguably the best superhero film ever made.

What about “The Amazing Spider-Man” 1 and 2? By December of last year most everyone had forgotten ASM2 was even a thing. There was just so much it got wrong and so little it did right. I personally marked it as one of my biggest disappointments of 2014.

The franchise itself isn’t *bad*, but it is just two “meh” films that seemed to ask fives questions for every one answer it gave.

Speaking of, assuming this is the end of the franchise, there are so many questions, plot holes and storylines left untouched.

What ever happened to Uncle Ben’s killer? (this is really a question you could ask after the first film, seeing as Peter gives up searching about halfway through)

So, is Peter’s dad alive, or is that deleted scene showing him having survived the plane crash just going to be an acknowledge misstep?

What is Oscorp’s evil plan? (not even the writers know this one)

We’re never going to know the answers to any of these questions, and honestly I don’t think we will care.

Variety

Variety

The other thing that the Spider-Man/Marvel deal means is the subsequent recasting of Peter Parker. Andrew Garfield, who voiced his distain with the second film and has been publically scapegoated by Sony for it, is out.

Sony is sticking with their 2017 release date for the new Spider-Man standalone film. However whoever is cast in the role will likely make his first appearance in 2016’s “Captain America: Civil War”, where we will see Cap and Iron Man face off (there’s a whole post-Avengers story-arc involving Spider-Man that comic book fans know a lot more about than I do). So this recasting has to be done relatively quickly, as that film begins shooting in April.

Whoever is chosen, I hope and pray that their standalone film is not another origins story. Like, seriously. If the five years between “Spider-Man 3” and “The Amazing Spider-Man” seemed too short, just imagine how only three years between ASM2 and whatever the title of this new Spider-Man is would feel. If I see Uncle Ben get shot one more time, I’m going to lose it, and not because I got the feels (you try watching the scene from “Spider-Man” and tell me it isn’t beautifully done).

One could argue that they are rebooting Batman only four years since his last film (2012’s “Dark Knight Rises” to 2016’s “Batman V Superman”), but BvS isn’t (hopefully/assumingly) going to feature an origin story.

We know the hero, and we know that some father figure got killed in front of him so he has a sense of purpose driving him. We don’t need to spend half a film beating the audience over the head with these facts.

Andrew Garfield is going to be fine. He’s currently working on a Martin Scorsese project and is only 31 years old (you know, because 31-year-olds can pass for high schoolers all the time, right, Sony?). I doubt that not making another passable Spider-Man film is going to derail his career.

I also doubt there are many people crying that this series is done. It was a fun enough ride while it lasted, but by 2025, when Marvel is actually beginning to enter the reboot-phase and films from the 1990’s are started to get remade, no one is going to remember “The Amazing Spider-Man” even happened. It will be the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question, and you’ll be like, “oh yeah, those were a thing”.

I’m excited to see Spider-Man sharing a screen with Iron Man and Captain America, and I’m also cautiously excited to see what a rebooted franchise could mean. Let’s just hope they get the villains right this time.

‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Zany, Brilliant Fun

Leave a reply

GOTG-posterImagine “The Avengers” and “Star Wars” had a child and it listened to nothing but music from the 1970’s and 80’s. That’s pretty much what “Guardians of the Galaxy” is, and it’s about as awesome as you imagined when you read that description.

Directed and written by James Gunn, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is yet another film set in the Marvel Universe. It stars Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper as the Guardians, a group of rag-tag intergalactic criminals who set out to save the world from a radical tyrant.

The first time I saw the trailer for “Guardians”, I thought it was a joke; like a parody skit from a late night show. It was so sarcastic and over-the-top and self-referential that it couldn’t be an actual film. But it was, and the final product is as entertaining as that first trailer implied it to be.

Everything about “Guardians of the Galaxy” has been done before, yet the film manages to be fresh and new all at the same time. The heroes in the film, despite ranging from a walking tree to a talking raccoon, are more relatable than the average superhero. They curse, get drunk, and debate not saving people because it would endanger their own life. You know, people stuff.

Gunn, who directed “Super”, a film where a regular guy becomes a vigilante hero, has written a script that doesn’t forget about its hero’s humanity, as well as their humor, and it is what makes “Guardians” such a fun ride. Honestly, this is one of the funniest films of the year. All the Marvel movies have their share of wit and humor, especially “Iron Man”, but “Guardians” is different. It’s just plain zany. Characters will say things that on paper shouldn’t work, or may seem awkward in a superhero film, but on screen it turns to gold (“I have a plan! I have…I don’t know, 12% of a plan!”).

The only true flaw in “Guardians of the Galaxy” is the use of filler scenes. While I was never bored, and at times was having the most fun I had had at a cinema all year, there are a few scenes that just felt unnecessary, and created some pacing issues. If the film had been an hour 45, instead of pushing it to the two hour mark, I think it would have been perfect. But hey, I’m not complaining I got an additional 15 minutes of seeing a raccoon shooting a machine gun.

The villain was also very Darth Maul-ish in that he looks cool, but in actuality has a cliché plot and is just a puppet for the main villain of the series. But that’s neither here nor there.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is like everything you’ve seen before in superhero and science-fiction films, yet unlike anything you’ve ever seen. It’s stupid, cliché, and over-the-top all while being brilliant, original and relatable. I honestly had a blast with this film and feel no guilt saying that it is just as good, and slightly funnier, than “The Avengers”. In a month of the year that normally has studios dumping out trash, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is anything but.

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘Captain America’ Sequel Fun and Thrilling

Captain_America_The_Winter_Soldier            It’s official: summer has come early this year. The snow hasn’t completely melted and spring is not even two weeks underway yet thanks to “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”, the summer movie season has begun and we can all feel a little bit warmer (which is ironic, seeing as the film has the word ‘winter’ in the title…).

Once again starring Chris Evans as the man in red, white and blue spandex, this sequel follows Captain America trying to adjust to the present day. When a new enemy known only as the Winter Soldier poses a threat to the world, the Cap teams up with Black Widow (Scarlett Johanson) and Falcon (Anthony Mackie) to save the day. Brothers Anthony and Joe Russo direct.

The first “Captain America” film was alright, although it was certainly the weakest entry of the initial Marvel Avenger films. And after the fun “Iron Man 3” and the disappointing (and forced) “Thor 2”, it really was anyone’s guess as to how this “America” sequel would be. What we end up getting is an immensely entertaining popcorn flick that is the best Avenger movie since the original “Iron Man”.

There are just so many things that “Winter Soldier” does right. First things first, the action is well-shot. The film uses wide-shots instead of the close-ups that hinder many PG-13 action films, making the action clear and comprehensible. The Russo brothers seemed to be an interesting choice to direct a big budget superhero film as they’re known for directing TV  comedies like “Arrested Development” and “Community”, but the two have a steady hand with the gunplay sequences, and keep things moving at a solid pace when the guns aren’t going off.

When the film isn’t being an entertaining action film, it is a very well-done political thriller. There are numerous whodunit moments, and it keeps you guessing for a while. Much like Captain America you are not sure who to trust or who may be behind the plot. Film legend Robert Redford steps in to play the leader of S.H.I.E.L.D, and he brilliantly blends taking the role seriously while at the same time knowing he is in a comic book movie, so he hams it up just a tad. It is a solid performance that gives the film some real credibility.

The one thing I can think to knock “Winter Soldier” for is that it does feel a bit overlong; let’s just say it won’t be taking home the Oscar for best editing. That doesn’t mean the film is ever boring, it just feels like it could have been about 15 minutes shorter. But hey, as Samuel L. Jackson says in the movie, we don’t live in a perfect world.

I loved most every minute of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”. It is made for comic book fans and casual moviegoers alike. Do you love gun battles? Good, see this movie! Do you enjoy superhero fist fights? Good, see this movie! Are you a fan of intense political thrillers? Good, see this movie (I can’t help but think of that DiCaprio “Wolf of Wall Street” speech as I just reread that).

Critics Rating: 9/10

‘Thor’ Sequel Forced More Than Fun

Leave a reply

Thor_-_The_Dark_World_poster

            The bar has been set so high for superhero movies that it should come as no surprise that “Thor: The Dark World”, the sequel to 2011’s “Thor” and last year’s “The Avengers”, isn’t quite able to carry the torch of its predecessors. Chris Hemsworth returns as the long haired god with the shiny hammer, Natalie Portman returns as his human love interest, and his mischievous brother Loki is once again brilliantly played by Tom Hiddleston. Together the three must stop an evil ruler from plunging the universe into darkness. Alan Taylor takes over directorial duties from Kenneth Branagh.

This movie has to be compared to the other films in the connected Marvel universe. It may be unfair but that is the way of the world. And “Dark World” is not as good as the other films, and one could argue it is the worst of the series to date. The film isn’t bad, but it really just felt like it was an obligatory move by the studio to (A) get an extra $700 million plus out of audience members and (B) force plot points so we have more anticipation for 2015’s “Avengers” sequel.

The biggest problem with “Dark World” is its plot. It is just so unnecessarily complicated. The story goes that the Dark Elves want an ancient power source in order to coat the universe in eternal darkness and only Thor can stop them. Ok, sure. But why do they want to make the universe dark? What is the power source? Why is the main villain so underwhelming and uninteresting? Well none of these questions are answered in the film, so my rhetorical asking was simply a rouse.

The action in the film, while at times entertaining, is also a bit tiresome. The best way I can explain it is that the movie has the same problems as both “Kick-Ass 2” and “Man of Steel”. As with “Kick-Ass 2”, we have seen this type hammer dueling action before, so it is redundant rather that refreshing, and can get boring quickly.  But unfortunately the “Man of Steel” problem is that in some sequences the action is nonstop and unrelenting, almost to the point of exhaustion. We get it, seeing thunder gods smash aliens is cool and amusing. We also got it when the scene started ten minutes ago.

Now the film is still fun, and much of that praise goes to Tom Hiddleston. His portrayal of Loki is a scene stealer. He is sarcastic, devious and amusing, often all at once, and we hate how much we love him. It is also entertaining watching Thor try and interact with the basic human world, such as having to take a subway or using a coat hook.

“Thor: The Dark World” is fun at times, however most of the film just feels like a forced move to transition Thor into the next Marvel films. There are just too many plot holes and unneeded characters that keep “Dark World” from being a dumb popcorn flick. It just doesn’t meet the expectations that have been set for it by the other Marvel films. They say lightning never strikes the same place twice and that stands true here (ok, so what Thor is the god of thunder, not lightning. The analogy still works).

Critics Rating: 6/10