Marvel Cinematic Universe: Ranked!

      Okay, a little history lesson: In 1996, after about a decade of corporate wrangling and increasingly desperate attempts to bulk up sales in the wake of a generally declining industry, Marvel Entertainment formally declared bankruptcy. To save it, they merged with their subsidiary Toy Biz, and was able to reemerge from bankruptcy. To help do so, they sold the film rights to their stable of characters to multiple studios and co-produced the films under "Marvel Studios". This worked out well enough starting with 1998's Blade, and continuing with the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and a certain unmentionable director's X-Men trilogy. However, with these successes, many others were stillborn, and the rights reverted back to Marvel. With Iron Man's rights reverting back from New Line Cinemas, they teamed up with Paramount to make Iron Man in 2007, with plans to make a film based on the premier Marvel comics superhero team The Avengers. Flash-forward today, Marvel Entertainment is now an arm of the all-powerful Disney corporation, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the biggest thing in movies right now, for good and for bad. With Endgame on the horizon, and as a lifelong Marvel fan, I figure I might as well rank these before going into Endgame. I rewatched a lot of the MCU over the past few weeks in order to prepare for this list. Mostly Phase 1 and Phase 2. Not really in order and I did skip some because I had seen them recently enough to remember what I thought of them. I'll do these like the year-end list, where I'll rank it worst to best, and have every film in there, with a short explanation as to why. This quiz here (https://sorta.app/q/1016/frosemqiantjlcugpdbkh) was very useful in helping formulate this list. So, without further ado:

Thor: The Dark World

The only one of these that was legitimately bad in its own right. Confusing, dimly light, way too serious, with some glimmers to a better film here and there (most notably Thor and Loki making their escape). It was the only time watching that I didn't at least have some good time watching. Worse, a few days out from seeing it, I barely remember what happens in it.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

You may recall I put this at the very bottom of one of my first year-end lists. It is easily the weakest film that isn't necessarily bad. A few things save it: James Spader as Ultron, Andy Serkis as Klaw, the opening fight scene, the second half of the climax. However, its main problem is the action scenes, which aren't well-shot, and feel too long to have any actual impact.

The Incredible Hulk

There appear to be three films being made here. One is "Jerry Bruckheimer does The Fugitive". The second is a Michael Crichton SF thriller. The other is a monster movie with the Hulk. The one-third that has the Hulk is pretty good, but it is bogged down by the other two-thirds. I heard Ed Norton rewrote the script heavily, so that might account for this problem.

Thor

For a while, I knew I didn't care for this film in comparison to the others, but I couldn't quite put my finger as to why. After rewatching, I think that I feel disappointed that the film is not more over-the-top. It feels too reverent and constrained, and Marvel's Thor was always larger-than-life. I suppose it comes down to: it took itself too seriously.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Decent. Decent action, decent character moments, decent story. It is basically a good film, and I enjoy it. That said, with better Spider-Man movies (Spider-Man 2, Into the Spiderverse)  it pales in comparison to those. I think I was kind at the time because it was a good palette cleanser for the obscenely bad Amazing Spider-Man 2,  and it eschewed being another origin story. Again, I like this film, but it was weaker on the rewatch

Iron Man 3

It was an interesting turn they took with Iron Man's signature villain (I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it), and just as a Shane Black movie, it's pretty good. It has his signatures: a sprawling conspiracy involving a well-known industry, a little kid who helps the hero, Christmas. It's not one of his best, but if you like his films, it'll satisfy even non-Marvel fans.

Captain Marvel

It was a good decision to actually lean into some feminist themes (however surface level it may have been), as opposed to merely having a female protagonist and just leaving it there. It helps elevate to more than another origin story. It also had decent enough action to back it up, and the reinvention of the Skrulls was a superb twist that worked very well for comic fans.

Iron Man 2

I was a big defender of this one for many years, but it was a while since I had seen it, and yeah, it hasn't really stood the test of time. It's still fun, and it does do a different story than the first, but a lot of the story feels half-baked and underutilized, and the climax was just too bombastic without any sort of motivation or understanding.

Ant-Man

This is generally a lot of fun. A good sort of superhero heist film, with tons of witty dialogue, character banter and pop culture references to really engage an audience, along with some excellent visuals taking advantage of its size changing hero. Makes sense, given Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, and Adam McKay all wrote the film. Yeah, apparently it's considered one of the weaker films, but it is a lot of fun for me (even if its villain was a bit boring.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Also a lot of fun, but director James Gunn manages to imbue it with a very personal touch. Focusing on the characters and how these misfits and outcasts slowly grow to become a family, with some dark moments and some great action. It is sort of amazing how well the balance of emotion, action, and comedy really work out to make this entertaining. And of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the soundtrack, which I still listen to frequently.

Ant-Man and the Wasp

Even more fun, even more visuals, even more comedy. A good sequel always takes what works about the first, and ups the ante, and with this films extensive exploration of the Quatum Realm, and Ant-Man becoming Giant Man, it really ups that ante. It also fixed the biggest problem of the first one, by having an interesting villain (but a bland secondary one)

Doctor Strange 

You might recall I put this in the "okay" category the year it came out. I think I was just affected by the negative buzz of it being yet another origin story. Now with some distance, it is an origin story, but it is very well done, with the character actually growing into the role and having to actually let go of his own ego. Also, I don't think I gave the truly impressive visuals or the inventive use of magic in the plot the due it deserved. So, call this a repentance for my previous evaluation.

Iron Man

This was actually a favorite of mine for many years, and I've seen it a dozen times. It holds up well after 12 years. There are flaws and indications of its age (most notably the Bush era focus on terrorism and the glamor of Tony's life, and the start of Marvel's obsession with making a villain a dark reflection of the hero), but its well-crafted plot and ingenous scheme of incorporating comic storytelling to the silver screen deserves a lot of credit.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Taking more influence from 70's political thrillers and Steve Englehart's run of the character during that same period, this manages to take the character of Cap and deal with his commitment to freedom in a world that increasingly and slowly chips away at that freedom, as well as him having to fight a very personal threat. With more intense, up close action and a bzyantine conspiracy that completely derails the MCU as previously known, this was the first that really helped mature the franchise beyond the standard superhero film.

Thor: Ragnarok

Much has been said about the political subtext of the film being about the legacy of colonialism, much of which can be attributed to the half-Maori director Taika Waititi. However, I want to give props to the film for capturing the look of the Marvel Cosmic, and with that, finally getting Thor right as a bombastic hero, and adding some humor into the film. Combined with an excellent supporting cast, and it makes for a good film viewing experience.

Captain America: Civil War

Really more of an Avengers centerpiece, this features a strong, dense story that never collapses or feels too complicated or confusing. The slowly rift between Cap and Iron Man just grows and festers with each scene before it climaxes in a dark, brutal finale that is very hard to get out of mind. It was a good gut punch of a film and had enough seriousness without going over-the-top with (*cough* Batman v. Superman *cough*)

Captain America: The First Avenger

This was the highlight of the Phase 1, hands down. Joe Johnston's affection for the media and culture 1930's and 40's (used to great effect in his other Disney produced superhero film The Rocketeer) give the film a sense of both nostalgic, and modern sensibilities.  The gloss and charm of the style help give the story and the character of Cap more reverence and urgency, especially in dealing with a threat that even surpasses the Nazis. This was the kind of film that really does justice to the character. (Given the 40's serials actually produced during the war got his identity completely wrong, that's really saying something)


Avengers Infinity War

This is how a big crossover event should be done. Enough time is given to each character, there is a lot interplay between them, and there is enough action and character to move the plot along. It manages to balance out the more fantastic and the more mundane elements from each film, and has comic book fun without becoming pure camp or pure edge. What really makes this good is Thanos, who manages to be both a cruel, but fundementally human villain who is given life by Josh Brolin's performance.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. II

I'll just reiterate the points I made in this film's entry in my 2017 list. It is both a fun film with tons of well-done action, comedy, and visual that all work very well in their own right in making it feel like a Bronze Age Marvel story, but what really makes this extraordinary is how it manages to also be about the often complicated, contradictory nature of family and the nature of the relationships that tend to arise from that. It is sometimes a bit hard to watch because of that. And it easily has the best ending of any of these. I always tear up when I see it.

Black Panther

I think the theme of these last few entries is balance. Black Panther has a couple of minor flaws, sure, but what makes it the sort of film that can be nominated for an Academy Award is how it manages to be both a great superhero movie with great action and effects and have a strong sociopolitical streak, with themes of racism, colonialism, and isolationism being explored and utilized in the plot with powerful moments that stick with you for a long time. Neither side ever overwhelms the other; in fact, they compliment each other. It is the kind of superhero movie for people who don't like the genre.

The Avengers

Whilst not having any sort of political message or theme, this is easily the best of this cycle for just doing what sets out to do in the best possible manner. It manages to bring together these characters, develop them, have them interact, and have some really excellent character, before going into the action moments, where they could have some impact. It is sort of a perfect blockbuster in that sense. A pure action-adventure story that never forgets what it is, but tries to be what it is to the best of its ability. It really is sort of a modern classic.

-----------------------------

So, that's my rankings. You may think this is building up to an Endgame review. Well, maybe, but that will be hard to do, given that spoilers are a big thing going around and that there will be more than enough reviews going around that I won't have anything to say that someone else hasn't already.

So, join me in a few days, as I look at a much hyped auteur indie feature from indie darling corporation (often to the point of outright worship) A24, that was dumped onto VOD this week, Under the Silver Lake. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Hellboy II: The Golden Army

     (Okay, a bit of explanation. I couldn't find Spirit of the Beehive online anywhere. I assumed it was on Hulu, but for some reason, it wasn't there. Since getting a DVD of it would take a couple days, I decided to make a last minute pass, and choose something that was more easily available. To compound manners, I twisted my foot over the weekend, and had to spent time recovering from that. With that out of the way).

      Not much history, as to be expected from a sequel. Guillermo del Toro had intended a trilogy with the character, and with the success of the first one, the sequel was to be released in 2006. However, Revolution Studios, which had produced the original, went bankrupt, and Columbia stepped in to distribute. After bouncing around a few ideas (including reinterpretations of classic monsters and elemental titans) and some stories from the comics to adapt, del Toro and Hellboy creator Mike Mignola wrote an original story. The film finally entered production after Pan's Labyrinth won many accolades. Released in 2008, the film was both financially and critically successful, and a third film was in development, before it faltered, and a reboot (currently slated for 2019 with Stranger Things' David Harbour in the lead role) was deemed necessary.

     On Christmas Day, 1955, Trevor Bruttenholm (the late John Hurt) tells his adoptive son Hellboy (Montse Ribe) about the legend of the Golden Army. How humans and elves went to war many years ago, and how the Golden Army was created by Goblin engineers for the elves to destroy humanity. However, the elf King Balor ( Roy Dotrice) sees the destruction wrought about by his new army, and how he created a pact with mankind. However, Prince Nuada (Luke Gross), who had tempted his father to creating the Golden Army, is dissatisfied with this, and leaves to be called back at some indeterminate time, while the Golden Army is sealed away with the elf crown being the key to opening it. Sure enough, in the present day, Nuada decides his time has come to destroy the humans, and retrieves their portion of the crown from an auction at a museum. He then kills Balor, and takes his portion, while his sister Nuala (Anne Walton) flees with the final portion. Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and fellow Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD) agents Liz Sherman (Selma Blair) and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones, now doing both voice and body) investigate the initial attack, and find themselves the victims of tooth fairies (which are not as innocuous as they sounds). They defeat them, but Hellboy is exposed for the first time to the public, prompting fallout with the higher ups, particularly BPRD head Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor). They take one tooth fairy, and have their new team leader, Johann Krauss (John Alexander and James Dodd for body, Seth MacFarlane (!) for the voice) a German whose body is now a strange ectoplamsa material contained in a suit, examine it. This leads them on a course that will intersect them with Nuala and then, having to stop Nuada from reviving the Golden Army.

      I don't know where to start with how good this film is. It has great effects, an engaging story, great performances, great action, a larger sense of world building and mythology, some nice homages here and there (including references to the films of John Landis and Ray Harryhausen). Unlike the more mysterious original, this one has a more of an action-packed, urban fantasy feel to the proceedings, which actually works in that it still feels like it's in the universe of the original. It also has the character grow from the original, and grow throughout the film. The Golden Army itself was built up well, especially with their ability to regenerate, making their threat very clear, and forcing a unique solution beyond a direct confrontation.

     This is one of those films where every flaw I could think of actually works upon revisitation. I suppose the length.... nah, I'm kidding, it's 2 hours long. I think a little bit more backstory was needed for somethings. Like, if the elves were solely restricted to the British Isles and Ireland or were more worldwide, and a bit more on Johann Krauss and what happened to him (since he turns to the heroes side due to a tragedy in his life). It might've helped flesh out the story a bit more.

    I was harsh on the original Hellboy. I think I didn't really appreciate it for what it was, a fun romp with many different references and complex worldbuilding. I think this is better than the original, and a whole hearted recommendation to anyone who loves horror, urban fantasy, action, or del Toro films. Just, maybe watch the original first, however.

   We're at the home stretch, so Friday will see the modern classic American Psycho. 

Current Film Review: Justice League

    You know, I had higher expectations for this film. Wonder Woman was good, and Joss Whedon was brought in help with the reshoots, following an incredibly tragic death in director Zac Synder's family. Whilst the trailers weren't impressive, it didn't seem like the disasters that Man of Steel, Batman V. Superman, and Suicide Squad turned out to be. Maybe they were starting to get the idea. Maybe this would continue the streak Wonder Woman started. Maybe they could create a viable cinematic universe. After seeing the film.... Let's get this over with.

       Based on the DC team created by Gardner Fox, we start immediately after the events of BvS. While the world is in shock following Superman's (Henry Cavill) death, Batman (Ben Affleck) is seeing strange creature appear across the world, and trying to assemble a league of heroes with Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) to try to protect the Earth from impending threats. This includes Arthur Curry, alias Aquaman (Jason Mamoa); Barry Allen, alias Flash (Ezra Miller); and Vic Stone, alias Cyborg (Ray Fisher).  Sure enough, Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds), a member of the New Gods (Jack Kirby's group of powerful beings in the DC universe) and commander from Apokolips (in the comics, the realm dominated by Darkseid), comes to Earth to gain the three Motherboxes, which he had previously fought a war on Earth with the power, only for an allaince of humans, Amazons, Atlantians, Green Lanterns, what have you, and which have reactivated with Superman's death. Now, Batman and Wonder Woman must assemble the League and stop Steppenwolf from gaining the three Motherboxes. They may even get some help from beyond the gra.... Okay why do I have to treat that like it's a spoiler. It was obvious this was going to happen, but...

        Good things: Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot (as they were in the last film), Ray Fisher as Cyborg, Ezra Miller (in parts) as the Flash, decent McGuffin, creative creature design, some decent fight scenes, some good jokes (likely the product of Whedon), a decent enough homage to a classic comic in one of the, oh yeah, there are two after-credit scenes for this. Some nice nods to the DCU.

       The main problems with this film are the same problems with Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad. Like BvS, it is boring, a slog that drags on too long with its portentous alleged grandiosity. Despite the use of iconic characters and settings from a shared universe with large history, it just doesn't click on screen, with its action scenes simply not illiciting excitement and its character moments either clearly cut down, or pretentious. The overuse of CGI doesn't help in the former's case. It resembles a DC video game at times. Not even a modern one. One that might have been on the Playstation 2. Which brings me to the Suicide Squad comparison, which involves very heavy studio interference. It is abundantly clear this was hacked up by the studio after Whedon finished the reshoots and editing. Like Suicide Squad, this makes the film very haphazard, going from a sequel very much fitting in the universe of the previous films, to an Avengers-style character romp. It's jarring, and the retouched shots, like the bad CGI, create a very ugly looking film. It looks low budget, which is not a criticism that should not be for a film that cost $300 million to make.

       This was not as bad as Batman v. Superman or Suicide Squad. That's not an endorsement, given that this was merely bad, as opposed to inconceivably awful. If you, for whatever reason, liked the other DCEU films, you might like this. If you didn't, but Wonder Woman got your hopes up, well, it turned out how you expected. I really don't have much else to say. This was like cold, stale oatmeal. It was bad in a generic, forgettable fashion.

     I am going to do a double feature, because I want to share with you something that I had found. A film that has technically has been released for several weeks on the internet, but is only now getting reviews ahead of it's theatrical release. The November Criminals. Never heard of it? Well, let us take a look into it.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Creepshow

      From 1944 to 1955, EC was the biggest name in comics. Founded as an educational comic company by comic book pioneer and DC co-founder Maxwell Gaines, the company found its calling when Gaines' son Bill turned it into a genre powerhouse The biggest of its titles were his horror and crime comics, most famously Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror, The Haunt of Fear, and CrimeSuspence Stories. Despite the overwhelming popularity of these books (and others like Weird Science), their brutal depiction of crime and violence caused controversy, and eventually, activists like Dr. Fredric Wertham even got the Senate Subcommittee on Crime involved. The Comics Code Authority was formed in the aftermath, with rules cartered specifically to prevent EC from publishing their most famous books. They were left with their humor comic, Tales to Drive You MAD, which is still around today, though you may know it by the name it took after becoming a magazine in 1955: Mad Magazine.  Despite being so short-lived, EC proved to have staying power in popular culture. You may have recognized some of the titles I mentioned earlier from movies and TV shows, and those were adapted from or influenced by EC. Similarly, an entire generation of children grew up with the books, including artists inspired by their style. Two of those were George Romero and Stephen King. Friends for a while (King making a cameo in Romero's 1981 film Knightriders), they decided to use their shared affection for old EC horror books to make a film. King  already had two major film adaptations of his wrk at that point (Brian De Palma's Carrie and Stanley Kubrick's The Shining), but this was the first screenplay he wrote, adapting two of his stories ("Weeds" and "The Crate"), and wrote original material for the film. Veteran EC artist Jack Kamen did the in-film comic artwork (which delighted me when I found out, because I noted that inbetween scenes with the comic and some filmed scenes resembled his art style most of the EC artists I have knowledge of), as well as the cover of the Creepshow tie-in comic (though Swamp Thing co-creator Bernie Wrightson did the art for the book itself). The film was shot in an empty all-girls school near Pittsburgh. It made $21 million on a $8 million, and has a cult following to this, spawning two sequels.

      The film is an anthology, exploring different stories with different casts. The framing device has Billy (Joe King, son of Stephen and later known as author Joe Hill) being chastised by his father Stan (Tom Adkins, playing every father from every 80's metal video) for reading the horror comic Creepshow. After Stan throws the book away, Billy fantasizes of the undead host of the book (apparently named "The Creep") coming to his window, and he starts the film off by retrieving the comic from the trash, and giving us the tales within it. The first story, "Father's Day", sees a wealthy Grantham family, including Sylvia (Carrie Nye), Richard (Warner Shook), Cass (Elizabeth Regan), and Cass' husband Hank Blaine (Ed Harris) waiting for their aunt Bedelia (Viveca Lindfors) to arrive. Several years earlier, Bedelia killed her father Nathan (Jon Lormer) on Father's Day in the culmination of years of anger at him for his demanding and demeaning nature. Thus, every Father's day, Bedelia stops at his grave to continue her anger. However, this Father's Day, Nathan might have his cake (and eat it too. I made that joke a lot during this segment.). The next segment is "The Lonesome Death of Jody Verrill", which sees the title character (Stephen King. Yep, that one), an incompetent farmer, discovering a meteor. While trying to keep it to make money, it breaks, and starts to spread plant-like aliens around. Including on Verill himself. "Something to Tide You Over" sees wealthy Richard (Leslie Nielsen) take vengeance on his cheating wife Becky (Gaylen Ross) and her lover Harry (Ted Danson), by burying them on the beach, and having the high tide drown them. However, he finds that some people are just durable. "The Crate" has a college custodian (Don Keefer) find a crate with the label "Arctic Expedition, 1834". He calls upon Professor Stanley (Fritz Weaver) to see and open the crate. What they find is quite hungry. Finally, in "They're Creeping Up on You," which sees ruthless businessman Upson Pratt (EG Marshall) trying to maintain a sterile apartment, whilst cockroaches seem to keep popping. As he makes cutthroat deals, the cockroaches keep coming. And coming. And Coming.

    I loved the style of this film. The animated scene transitions  make you feel like you're reading an old Comic book, ads and all, and give you a sense on how the film feels. The film is also shot to emulate a comic book panel. Not just shots that show comic panels directly, but the way the film is lit and shot resembles the way old comic books would emphasize actions where reality couldn't. I think my complete enjoyment of this film can from that style, how it so captured the feeling of reading old EC books (I myself own a collection of EC Weird Science issues), and how much fun it could inspire. I love superheroes movies, but very rarely do they invoke the spirit of the comics they originated from the way this film does for horror comics. Similarity, it is legitimately terrifying. Each segment has a terrifying moment, one which jumped me out of my seat. The more comic book inspired look of the film actually made some scenes scarier than they would've been. The last segment, especially if you hate cockroaches, like I do, will haunt you. The effects helps, with surprisingly realistic resurrected dead (which still look very much like ones from old horror comics), and some good creature designs. The acting all around is good, with Stephen King of all people giving a strong comic performance. Each segment works as it's own story, and each hold up.

     I felt the segments should've been of roughly same length. Like I said, none of them are bad, but some feel longer than they should be. Those segments did have a payoff, but it took a while, and some scenes could've been cut. Also, to keep with the atmosphere, I felt the horror host ought to have been narrating film, instead of a background figure flipping the pages, using some sort of snearky dialogue. It's fine as is, but having an active horror host would've helped.

    I honestly loved this film. It is a joyride of fear and euphoria, simultaneously fun and terrifying. This is a great homage to EC Comics and their output, but holds up on its own as an individual horror film. I highly recommend this for horror fans as a fun nighttime romp, or for a brief Halloween scare.

Next film is Monkey Shine.  

Current Movie Review- Kingsman: The Golden Circle

    I heard a lot of bad press for this film. Mainly, what I had heard was that, in comparison to the first one, it was a disappointment. Some even hating it. So, I had trepidations going into this. I had hoped that it would be another John Wick, Chapter II. Another sequel that takes what worked about the original, and expands on it. However, the film many compared this to was Men in Black II. Another sequel which took the fresh original (also based on an independent comic), and alternated between repeating it and contradicting it in order to repeat it. (As Rick Sanchez said, it was a "soulless cash-grab") Having now watched it, The Men in Black II  comparison is the most appropriate. It's not as bad as MiB II or III, but yeah, in comparison to the first one, this was disappointing.

      Based on characters from Mark Millar's and Dave Gibbon's  The Secret Service (which didn't have a sequel), a year has passed since the events of the first one, and Gary "Eggsy" Unwin (Taron Edgerton) is now a bone fide Kingsman, still working alongside Roxie (Sophie Cookson) and Merlin (Mark Strong), and dating Swedish Princess Tilde (Hanna Alstrom) . The film opens with the James Franco look-alike from the first one, Charlie (Edward Holcroft) attacking him, having lost his arm (somehow) during the events of the first one. After an extended action scene in a taxi, he manages to escape. However, the robotic arm manages to hack the Kingsman's database. Charlie goes to his new benefactor Poppy (Julianne Moore), a drug lord obsessed with the 70's version of the 1950's (and keeps Elton John (Reginald Dwight) around as entertainment). Poppy has been sending tainted drugs in order to force full drug legaization across the world. She uses the info Charlie retrieved to launch an all-out offensive, leading to the destruction of the Kingsmen. Only Eggsy and Merlin survived the onslaught. However, when they drink a whiskey they had retrieved for such an occasion, they are alerted to the "Statesmen", a similar organization from across the pond. After a terse meeting with Tequila (Channing Tatum), they meet the American version of Merlin, Ginger Ale (Halle Berry), agent Whiskey (Pedro Pascal) and the Statesmen leader, Champagne (Jeff Bridge) (Get it?) Biggest of all, they find the Statesmen had retrieved Harry Hart (Colin Firth) after his death in the first one. Poppy's demand illicits an opposite response from POTUS (Bruce Greenwood) who wants to kill off all the drug users to gain some political points. Between people slowly falling victim to Poppy's drugs and the President herding them to force their death, the Kingsmen and Statesmen must team up to find the antidote.

      I'll give it this: like the first one, the actors are clearly having a good time, either hamming it up or indulging wholescale in the action. (Spoiler) One of the characters dies singing John Denver's "Take Me Home, Country Roads (The second time this year I've heard that song in a film) Some of the action scenes are good (I'll get back to that). Elton John was enjoyable in his supporting role. Most people got annoyed by him, but I found his presence funny (plus, he plays one of his most enjoyable songs "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting"). The set design is good. The action set pieces are well-established, if contrived. The action is also toned down significantly from the first one (though it still has some gruesome moments, they feel less intrusive.  The fact that POTUS turns out to be a minor villain was a nice touch, (especially since it pokes fun at both extremes of the drug debate)

    The first fight scene in this film was hard to engage with. The problem was that it was so heavily CGI'd, which would be fine if it weren't so fake-looking. It set the tone for some of the action, which felt less innovative than the first one. It tries to top the first one, but it feels subpar. Sometimes, it wouldn't make sense. I mentioned MiB II earlier, and it feels most apt when talking about Eggsy. Like Will Smith in MiBII, it feels like the character has been stuck where he was in the last film. It never really shows any sort of growth for his character. Not that he is back to where he was at the beginning of the first film, but he doesn't really have anywhere to go. Taron Edgerton still gives an excellent performance, but the character felt running in place. The plot is engaging, but it doesn't feel organic and more contrived. It also feels like it goes on for too long, because they needed to wrap up everything. That goes with individual scenes as well, which sometimes take longer than they should. Some actors are wasted. Despite their prominence in the trailer, Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges are basically cameoing. Julianne Moore's villain (aside from her opening scene) doesn't feel particularly disturbing or threatening. They outright killed Roxy (one of the best parts of the first one) after only one scene.

    So, yeah, this was not another John Wick, Chapter II. If you liked the first one, maybe you'll enjoy this, but it won't really exceed it. If you haven't seen the first one, don't bother. Go watch It, that was a good adreneline rush film, or stay home and watch the first one. I had fun in this, and I liked it more than other people, but I agree it wasn't as good as the first one, and I do see why people dislike.

   Tomorrow, I will start the next chapter of Masterpiece of Horror Theatre, with the late Tobe Hopper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre. 

Movie review: Captain America: Civil War

       I would be lying if I said that I didn't understand the fatigue with superhero films. There are a lot of them, and the massive corporations that create them do market them excessively. There are a lot more planned in the future too. Then again, trends like westerns or slasher film had similar runs in the 50's and 80's respectively. But, you know what irritates me more? People complaining about superhero movies. Seriously, it seems every day I see a comment or a think piece about superhero movies are too much, and how they are distracting from  films that are"true art" or some cockamamie like that.  It is just so... hipster, for lack of a better term. Pretending to be some sort of intellectual insight by disparaging popular forms of media. You ever hear the phrase "Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good?" Well, these people apparently take that to mean that "It's popular, ergo it's bad, and it's popularity indicates the fall of cultural tastes," and I wrote a whole piece on that a month or so ago, so go read that. Again, I understand if people are tired of superhero movies. I was admittedly starting to grow tired of them as well after Age of Ultron. Even the surprisingly good Ant-Man wasn't spectacular, and didn't help me appreciate the genre. Batman v. Superman was so dull, I thought perhaps the experience watching that may dull my experience watching Captain America: Civil War, because it indicated my fatigue with superhero films. Actually, watching Batman v. Superman actually enhanced the experience of this film, because I realized what that film did wrong, and what this film did right. It also reminded me of why Marvel movies are so well-regarded. They do put more effort into the scripts and acting, and they actually know what the fans of these films want. So, with that introduction out of the way,...

    Based around the Marvel comics character created by Joe Simon and "Jolly" Jack Kirby, Captain America: Civil War once again follows the adventures of Steve Rogers, Captain America ( Chris Evans). The new Avengers assembled at the end of Age of Ultron (Scarlet Wtich (Elizabeth Olson, who I learned is the younger sister of the Olsen twins), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Falcon (Anthony Mackie)) are on a mission in Lagos, where they try to stop the assassin Crossbones (Frank Grillo) from attaining a biological weapon. When Crossbones detonates a bomb on his person, while Cap is interrogating him, the Scarlet Witch contains the explosion, but releases it at a nearby building, killing several workers from the small East African nation of Wakanda. International condemnation ensues, and Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) tells the Avengers that due to the number of incidents where they were involved, and people were killed, the UN wants to institute the "Slokovia Accords", which would place them under a UN mandate. Tony Stark, Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) supports this measure, along with Black Widow and War Machine (Don Cheadle), but Cap is skeptical. Cap learns of the death of his former girlfriend Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), and attends the funeral. There, he meets her niece Sharon (Emily VanCamp), a CIA operative in Germany. At the signing of the Accords in Vienna, a bomb goes off, killing the Wakandan King T'Chaka (John Kani). The blame is quickly placed on the Winter Soldier, aka "Bucky" Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Cap's best friends turned HYDRA assassin. T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), the prince of Wakanda, swears vengeance, and adopts the "Black Panther" moniker, one which has gone down generations of Wakandan warriors.Cap knows that Barnes has been framed, and Barnes professes as much when Cap confronts him. When Cap and Falcon try to protect Barnes from government agents, they find themselves enemies of the government, and Stark. Can they prove Bucky innocent, and get into a conspiracy to split the Avengers?

      This is much more serious than any of the previous Marvel movies, going off the darker tone of  The Winter Soldier. There are less jokes or very funny moments. Unlike  Batman v. Superman,  however, it works to the film's advantage, underscoring how intense and serious some of the moments in the film are. There are several scene, which are legitimately shocking to see. The events also have more weight and consequence to them, unlike Batman v. Superman. I feel more invested in the events happening. The action is very good, as usual, and I feel more excited watching it. As always, the cast is absolutely great. A particular stand out is Tom Holland as Spider Man (who appears later in the film, so I didn't mention him in the synopsis), who manages to do a good job trying to separate himself from Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield. I also liked Spider-Man's costume, which resembles the iconic Steve Ditko look of the 60's. Chadwick Boseman does a very good job as the Black Panther, and I'm very excited for his solo film (I'm a fan of that particular character).  While not using the comic's "Superhuman Registration Act", it does provide some interesting questions on whether the Avengers should intervene with supervision, and the conflict within the Avengers feels real, and builds on the characterization of team since their inception back in the original film. A recurring theme is the idea of revenge and hatred, which causes some characters to overreact and make some poor decisions.

     Like I said, I liked Spider-Man, but honestly, he could be cut out of this film. I wish he played a larger role, just so that his presence is justified a little more than "We would like to introduce the MCU Spider-Man, before we put him in a movie". Also, the motivation of the villain is less than satisfying. Given the wide scope of the conspiracy, I thought that there would be more, but no, the reason the villain (not spoiling who it is) is doing this is very simple. Given the scope of the events, it is very disappointing. The inclusion of the other Avengers, while necessary, sometimes distracts from Cap and the Winter Soldiers, who are supposed to be the main focus. Finally, while the title is appropriate, they should have incorporated more elements from the comic version. It could've justified the title.

    This was far better than Age of Ultron, and it restored my faith in Marvel. If you want a good superhero film after Batman v. Superman, or you enjoyed most of the previous Marvel films, this is the film for you. If you don't like Superhero movies, I don't think this will change your mind, but I'd say give it a chance, because there are elements of spy films in this. Overall, very exciting and very fun. A rare quality in today's blockbusters.

Movie review- The Peanuts Movie

    Not much I could say about this one. Even you don't live in the United States, most of you are probably familiar with the Peanuts franchise largely through cultural dissemination, i.e. various uses of the characters in commercials, or cultural references in shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy.  Most of you in the US are likely familiar with the basic premise either from the comic strip it originated from, or several holiday specials made in the 60's and 70's. I suppose I could tell you why it's called Peanuts. Apparently, it's an old term for "children", which fits the strip. I suppose. That's also why a rowdy audience is called a "Peanut gallery." On old TV shows, there was a children audience in the background. Shulz actually wanted to name the strip "Li'l Folks" or "Good Old Charlie Brown", but "Peanuts" was chosen isntead.

      Based on the long running comic strip by Charles M. Shulz, the film revolves around everyone's favorite loser, Charlie Brown (Noah Schnapp). He is not good at much, but he is a good person at heart. He also always has the company of various colorful character, including his younger sister, Sally (Mariel Sheets), his blanket loving friend Linus (Alex Garfin), HIS sister, the very vain and condescending Lucy (Hadley Belle Miller), piano player Schroeder (Noah Johnston), tomboyish Peppermint Patty (Venus Omega Schultheis), and her sidekick Marcie (Rebecca Bloom), and of course, Charlie Brown's loyal beagle Snoopy, and his bird friend Woodstock (both voiced by Bill Melendez via archive recording). In the unnamed town they live in, a "Little Red Haired Girl" (Francesca Angelucci Capaldi) moves into town, and Charlie Brown is deeply smitten with her, and is determined to impress and grab her attention. However, he is not the most impressive of people. Lucy (in the role of "psychiatrist") advises him to remold himself as a winner. However, every one of his attempts to impress end up backfiring miserably. Can Charlie Brown overcome his various shortcomings and impress the "Little Red-Haired Girl". A B-Plot is Snoopy, inspired by his master's love story, deciding to write his own love story on a typewriter he found in the garbage. Basically, this is an adaptation of those scenes where Snoopy battles World War I flying ace the Red Baron, but with an added bonus of a love interest, Fifi (Kristin Chenoweth, for some reason; she barely says anything in the film). This B-Plot serves the same purpose as the "Tales of the Black Freighter" did in Watchmen. Just parallel the main story, and underscore the message of the whole affair.

     I was impressed by the animation of this film. It looks like those old tv specials, but expanded into 3-D. They even have moments where there are 2-D effects surrounding the characters, which was a nice touch. At the same time, they do take advantage of the more fluid animation process available, and it feels more fluid. I'm glad they took voice actors who actually sound like the people in the old specials, not just shoe-horn in celebrity voice actors, which would have ruined the effects. The main story is cute.  Snoopy is, as always the highlight of the piece, with his subplot very entertaining, and him having the best gags in the entire movie. The score, at times, also uses that very iconic jazz soundtrack, which is always enjoyable to hear.

    I suppose I did have an issue with the more openly slapstick tone of the film. From what I remember, the sense of humor deployed was more nuanced and subtle in the bits involving the kids. They revolved around more sardonic humor and failure (with sentimental moments, of course).The film uses a lot of fast paced physical humor. I suppose that's why those bits with Snoopy work the best. Those were the bits in the original cartoons, which used physical comedy, and used them to memorable effect (primarily because Snoopy spoke like he had a hairball in lungs). Again, I might be misremembering the original shorts. Maybe they did have more physical bits. I didn't read much of the comic strip, so I don't know if it was common there as well. Also, remember that soundtrack? Yeah, it's inconsistent. Sometimes, it's the piano based portion, sometimes its orchestral. Not very distracting, but got my attention.

      This is a cute movie. Something nice and simple for children. I admit, I enjoyed the film, and I did laugh alot. (Although I could have done without the kid behind making comments at the film) It has a good message of never giving up, no matter the circumstances. So, if you like Peanuts growing, you'd probably like this. If you have any relatives 10 or younger, they'll enjoy the film. That's all I have really to say.
   Next time, we go from Everytown, USA, to Everytown, USA in a post-apocolyptic dictatorship. Yeah, bad segway, sorry.  Next review is the final installment in the Hunger Games franchise, Mockingjay, Part II.



         

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Hellboy

    Hellboy was a comic series written and drawn by Mike Magnola, and published by Dark Horse Comics, first starting in 1993, and continuing into the present. It revolved around the titular Hellboy, a demon who was summoned to Earth in 1944, as an infant, and raised by humans. He fights on behalf of a secret organization called  Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD)(Despite its name, it apparently is an international organization, not exclusively a US agency) against a slew of supernatural threats, while dealing with his own "demons" (har har). The series was quite successful, and garnered a number of fans. One of those fans was none other than Guillermo del Toro, who began to petition for a film adaptation. He directed and wrote the film version. When Magnola and del Toro met, they both said that the best choice for Hellboy was Ron Perlman, and he was signed on. The film was released in 2004 to good reviews and good box office, though it opened against Passion of the Christ, and some theaters refused to run a movie about a demon against that film. Anyway, let's dive right in.
 
      In 1944, a small American troop, accompanied by Professor Trevor Bruttenholm (John Hurt) head to a small Scottish island, where a Nazi occult ritual is being held to summon  Ogdru Jahad, a Lovecraftian Outer God, essentially. The ritual is being held by Gregori Rasputin (Karel Roden) (why the Nazis trust a Slav (who are considered racially impure by them) to do this is never explained), as well as his assistants, assassin Karl Ruprecht Kroenen (Ladislav Beran) and Ilsa (because all Nazi women are named that, apparently) Haupstein (Bridget Hodson). The team foil the attempt, though not before an infant demon with a large glove appears. Bruttenholm takes the demon, and actually raises him. Flash forward 60 years, and the demon child, now named Hellboy (Ron Perlman) has become something of an urban legend. However, he is actually now a superpowered government agent for the BPRD, sent to investigate various paranormal activity, under the mentorship of the now aged Bruttenholm  . FBI agent John Myers (Rupert Evans) is recruited by Bruttenholm to become Hellboy's new partner. Hellboy isn't exactly enthusiastic about having a new partner. Also working with the BPRD is ultra-intelligent fish humanoid Abe Sapien (played by Doug Jones and voiced by David Hyde Pierce, and yes, every time I heard him, I heard Niles Crane as a fishman. If you don't think about it, it gets less distracting). Meanwhile, Kroenen and Haupstein are able to resurrect Rasputin, and he summons a demon. They are sent on a mission to a museum, where said demon appears. After a prolonged fight, Hellboy defeats the creature, but two mysteriously appear near Rasputin. Hellboy than goes to a local asylum, where he meets Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), a pyrokineticist, who was a former partner and love interest for Hellboy. She has poor control over her abilities. Hellboy tries to convince her to return to the BPRD, but she refuses. After one visit by Hellboy, she ends up burning down the hospital. Myers manages to convince Liz to come back to the BPRD. During a second battle with the demons, Abe Sapien is injured retrieving some eggs, and Kroenen plays dead in order for the BPRD to deliberately capture them. They learn from the eggs, that the demons (called Sammaers, apparently) hatch twice every time one dies. Hellboy gets jealous when Liz goes out for coffee with Myers, and escapes. (There is a genuinely funny scene involving Hellboy and cookies). While they are gone, Kroenen wakes up and manages to get Rasputin to the BPRD headquarters, where they kill Bruttenholm FBI director Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), who disliked Hellboy's rebelliousness, assumes control of the organization, and plans a final assault on Rasputin's base in Russia, where he and his cohorts plan to once again summon Ogdru Jahad. A team consisting of Hellboy, Manning, Myers,  and Sherman is sent to a Moscow cemetery to stop this. Hellboy and Manning dispatch Kroenen, while Myers and Sherman go to the lair of the Sammaers. Hellboy arrives, but is subdued. Liz uses her abilities to destroy the creatures and their eggs. Hellboy awakes to find himself and Liz captured by Rasputin and Ilsa. Rasputin takes Liz's soul to force Hellboy to manifest his demon abilities, which summons Ogdru Jahad. However, Myers is able to remind Hellboy of his father's wish for him, and he shakes the influence off, using a giant horn to close the portal. However, enough influence got out, that Rasputin transforms into a giant tentacled monster, who kills Ilsa. Hellboys kills the monster by intentionally getting swallowed, with a large amount of grenades stuck to his body (he is fireproof). The film ends with Hellboy and Liz sharing a well-deserved Romantic moment.

          The action in this film was very well done. It was intense, colorful, but it was very easy to comprehend, and you can tell who is fighting who. There is also a number of inventive kills and inventive scenes, which creates a lot of tension. The plot is a typical pulp style fantasy action adventure, and that's not a bad thing at all. The plot isn't complex or deep, but it is fun. It is fun to see a demon beat up other, more grotesque looking demons.. Particularly because the characters were well-defined, and I liked seeing them do these fun action scenes. Especially Hellboy. Ron Perlman is very charismatic in the role, playing up the childish rebelliousness, while still keeping him a badass action hero. The effects are very well done. I was very surprised to see practical effects used at times, which is always a bonus in my book. Even the CGI is very good, surprising for 2004. It also had a number of very funny moments, particularly involving Hellboy and cats. (That actually didn't sound as weird as I thought it did)

     Rasputin was not particularly enjoyable or memorable as the villain. I hardly remember anything he did. I wanted to see more of Odgru Jahad. He seemed infinitely more fascinating then the designated villain. (Maybe it's my preference towards Lovecraftian beings). I also got distracted, once again, by the fact that Nazi agents teamed with a Slavic mystic. I also feel they didn't focus as much as they should have on Hellboy being a demon raised in a human world. There is that scene where he is about to bring about the destruction of the world through his demon heritage, and the scene right before Bruttenholm's death, where he sees Hellboy as the bringer of doom, but it isn't brought up as much as the film wants me to think.

       This is my least favorite film from del Toro. However, that should speak more for del Toro as a film, because it is still a fantastic film. Once again, made with vision and passion for the material. I just didn't like it as much as his other films. Maybe his more atmospheric style didn't mesh with the more comic action style the film require. I greatly enjoyed this, and I encourage you, if you think you might enjoy this film, to seek it out and watch it.
    We close out with Halloween weekend, and the film The Hills Have Eyes by Wes Craven, and The Babadook.

Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron

(To anyone who gets the joke, Congratulations! You win the No-Prize! (That joke actually makes sense in context. Look it up))
Hey, Wayward Followers,
      This is your radical writer, Rambunctious  RC! And today, we discuss the exhilarating exploits of Earth's Mightiest Heroes! Of course, the good folks at Marvel are doing very fine for themselves. 2012's The Avengers, directed by Jaunty Joss Whedon, was a mega-success, on a scale only Galactus would appreciate! Whilst the Distinguished Competition languishes in a continual spiral of low-quality, "dark" movies, Marvel continues to put out only the highest quality movies that any True Believer would appreciate! Of course, this is thanks to a "Marvel formula" of good characterization, daring plots, and a little sense of humor! However, with a such a high standard to uphold, can the sequel "Age of Ultron," compare to the other Modern Marvels, especially with Jaunty Joss at the helm once again? Well, strap in, Wayward followers, and let's take a look!
     Based of the exciting Marvel comic book team created by Stan "The Man" Lee and Jack "King" Kirby, Age of Ultron follows our intrepid heroes, as they infilitrate the castle of the dreaded Baron Strucker ( Tepid Thomas Kretschmann). However, the Baron has an ace up his nefarious sleeve! Two superpowered twins, Quicksilver (Amazing Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Scarlet Witch (Enigmatic Elizabeth Olsen), who attack our heroes! (Are they mutants, the seed sprung from Magneto? Well,... It's possible. They don't mention it). Eventually, the Invincible Iron Man (Reputable Robert Downey, Jr, ) is able to penetrate the fortress, and after the Scarlet Witch induces a mysterious dream into Iron Man's mind, finds the specter previously wielded by Loki, God of Evil! Back at the Avenger's mansion, after Iron Man examines the mysterious contents of the spector, He and the Incredible Hulk's meek alter ego, Bruce Banner (Miraculous Mark Ruffalo) decide to build Ultron, a robotic peace keeping force. However, little do our Marvelous heroes realize that Ultron (Jumping James Spader), once activated, decides that the plague of mankind should be eradicated. He attacks our heroes, and escapes into the wide range of the World Wide Web. Now, the Avengers, including the Mighty Thor (Captivating Chris Hemsworth), the Gorgeous Black Widow (Snazzy Scarlett Johansson), Captain America (Charming Chris Evans) and The Sensational Hawkeye (Jazzy Jeremy Renner), must stop Ulton's evil scheme, and save the human race! But can the Mighty Avengers stop him in time?
     Well, Wayward Followers... You know, I'll stop that now. Still it was fun to write. So, good things. There are a lot of goods things about this film. The acting, the cinematography, and the writing are all superb, as usual. The action is fantastic, often comprehensible, but still fun to watch. I forgot how funny these films are. There is a running joke revolving around Captain America chastising Iron Man for language, which other character use against Cap. The burgeoning romance between Hulk and Black Widow is also an interesting touch. Two characters that normally aren't romantically attached are shown having a romance.  There are many nods to the comics, which don't feel like fanservice, but actually legitimately serve the plot. Whilst I'm sure people might be upset at the changes, (for instance, Hank Pym is not mentioned at all, despite being Ultron's creator in the comics,) the other references will likely placate them.  The plot isn't particularly complex, with the heroes simply trying to fight Ultron, as he tries to destroy the human race. However, there is also the unstable team dynamic, which Ultron exploits to try to further his plans. The design of Ultron is great, harkening back to the original, but adding a new modern twist. Also, Spader's performance brings more a malicious personality to Ultron, OTHER THAN THE ROBOT SPEAK THE COMICS DO. Also, an Avengers character hitherto unseen (who is sprung from a vision)? Awesome, completely awesome. Watch the film, and you'll see.
   There are a few gripes. The film starts immediately, and moves very fast from there, rather than slowly allow the events to build up, and increase the stakes. I suppose that this is because most are already familiar with the franchise and its characters, but still, had they set it up more, and slowed it down, it would feel more intense. Similarly, the climax feels a little long, with various events impeding our heroes. It isn't a bad climax It just it feels too long. Also, I was slightly bothered by the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Thinking how the X-Men reboot could possibly tie into the MCU kept bothering me through the film.
       So, as good as the first? Nope. However, the first is a hard act to follow. As a Marvel film on its own, it is still a fantastic picture. To anyone who loves superheroes, you'll probably see it anyway, so yeah, see it. If you don't like Superheroes, don't see it. If you just want to see a film, watch this. It makes me very excited for the next batch of Marvel movies. (Wakanda's mention alone makes me excited for Black Panther) Thanks for reading, Wayward Follower, and I'll see you in three weeks!.
       Extraordinary!

Review: Kingsman: Secret Service

        January and February are generally considered the dumping grounds for studios, meaning that they just place any film that wasn't great, and probably wasn't going to do well finacially from last year, and release it in a period before the real money makers (the summer blockbuster, and Oscar season) come into town. As I don't generally watch films that are poorly reviewed (hence, why you will never see me review Fifty Shades of Grey), I generally use this time to catch up on good films released last year. (This years left-over was Selma) Today's film is not the typical sort of film released during this early period of the year. It is actually quite good, and pretty fun. Kingsman: Secret Service. Let's go.
     Based on the comic series The Secret Service by Mark Millar (whom you may know as the writer of Kick-Ass, and Wanted, but I primarily know as the writer of Superman:Red Son) and Dave Gibbons (Best known for the main artist for Watchmen), the film revolves around Gary "Eggsy" Unwin (Taron Egerton), an young man whose promise has been squandered by years of unemployment, crime, and an abusive step-father. He stays to care for his mentally ill mother (Samantha Womack), and his 4 year old half-sister.  One day, after stealing a car from a local bully (apparently a goon of said step-father), and being arrested for evading the police, he calls a mysterious number on a medal, and says a coded message, which gets him out. When out, he meets the mysterious Harry Hart (Colin Firth), who was apparently friends with Eggsy's deceased father. When the bully and some of his army come to beat up Eggsy, Hart easily subdues them. He then invites Eggsy to his "tailor shop" (after the stepfather threatens Eggsy.) There, it is revealed that Harry Hart, and Eggsy's father, were both members of an international organization dedicated to preserving peace, called Kingsman, which takes its ques from the Knights of the Round Table. Eggsy is Hart's protege, in a way. He is to compete with several other young men and women for a position in Kingsman, in a series of training exercises supervised by Merlin (Mark Strong). Eggsy befriends one of these recruits, Roxanne (Sophie Cookson). Eggsy and Roxy has to endure the intense (and often illogical) training needed to become a Kingsman. Meanwhile, Hart is investigating a series of disappearances, which are being choreographed by eccentric tech mogul Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson). Valentine, believing the Gaia hypothesis stating that the Earth is one large organism, wants to wipe out all humanity, by releasing all of its violent impulses. He does this, but sending out a microchip through cell phones, which activate this impulse. Can the Kingsman stop his scheme? Can Eggsy become a Kingsman, and follow his father's legacy?
        First off, Colin Firth, badass. He is a scene-stealer, combining British civility with badass action. It helps he plays the role rather well, playing both a wise mentor and a bit of a father figure to Eggsy. Who knew Colin Firth could be an action hero. (I heard he did 80% of his own stunts.) Hell, I enjoyed watching his scenes more than Egerton's. (not that his scenes weren't good, I enjoyed his scenes as well) Samuel L. Jackson is also a scene stealer. Every scene of him in this film was deeply enjoyable to watch. He was hilarious; somewhat childish and naive, but also aware of his villainy.  Jackson is clearly having a lot of fun in this role. There was an especially good "I'm not a Republic Serial Villain" (seriously, can we make that a trope) moment, but I won't spoil it. Any and all scenes with either of them in it was a delight to watch. All the actors do well too, and the story, by all accounts, is fine, providing everything a good spy film needs.. Does it comment on social issues or the human conditions. No, and that's a good thing. This film also is rare nowadays. Most spy thrillers are now largely intense and brutal, without any light relief. This film understands that sometimes, people want a more light-hearted rump. Not to say that this is light-hearted. However, it knows that sometimes the most intense action can also be the most unrealistic and fun one. Most of the action is your traditional spy film violence, with a large amount of activity occurring on the screen. I was on the edge of my seat the entire film. The action was very well done, and very exciting to watch. You want to how insane the action is? The final battle is set to the tune of KC and the Sunshine Band! (Oh, by the way, any film that starts with Dire Straits is go in my book) And I never checked my phone. That is exceptionally rare, as now, even for films I like, I tend to look at the time, just to see how long it had been. I was invested in every moment, every scene of this film. And isn't that the best thing? When a film keeps you invested.
        I had some problems with the sometimes brutal violence. Like I said, this is not very lighthearted. It is very violent, and I'd be lying if I said that didn't bother me too much, Sure, there are some creative kills, and there is a "mind exploding" moment (har har), but it is somewhat brutal. There were also times, where I felt the story got a bit predictable. Don't get me wrong, like any good spy film, it keeps you on edge, and does several things that will surprise and shock you. However, there are moments where you will somewhat get will happen next. That's nitpicking though.
       One review I watched of this said that he watched the film with only three other people. That wasn't true in my theater. Along with me and a very good friend of mine whom I watched it with, the theater was packed. And I implore you, watch this.It is fun, jolly, action packed,and humorous. If you like all of those qualities, you will love this film. If you just want a small film to watch this Valentines day, (and you don't want to watch Fifty Shades of Grey) watch this, as you will never feel trapped in the theater. If you want a deep film, you won't find it here, but sometimes, you need a little fun. If I haven't made this clear, watch this film. Thank you.
      

Movie Reviews: Man of Steel.

(Note: this will contain moderate spoilers)
         Superheroes have become sort of a modern mythology. Beings with powers beyond that of ordinary man has been a staple of mythology since the beginning of civilizations. Now, instead of god with awesome and reality changing powers, or heroes out on quests to vanquish monsters or the like, we instead get the costumed hero, battling to save the pedestrian populace from various evils, ranging from petty criminals, corrupt businesses and business people, and murderers, to alien conquerers, evil sorcerers, cosmic beings, and mad scientists. These adventures of superhumans and their adventures are essentially no different from the fantastic mythologies of Greece or Norway or India. And, like the myths of old, which were depicted in various pieces of art ranging from the medieval times to the Victorian period, and later in books, movies, and video games in the modern age, various heroes are open to new interpretations, and new stories are born as a result. This is particularly true for superhero movies. From the 1940's onward, film adaptations showing various interpretation of superheroes have been made. Some of the traits created in these film can enter into the heroes regular continuity. However, recently, superhero movies have become not only more culturally  predominant, but also very profitable. This is shown in two franchises, the Dark Knight Trilogy and Marvel's Avengers films. These two franchises have made billions of dollars in box office revenue, putting them amongst the highest grossing films of all time, catapulted the characters into national attention, and created parodies and pop culture references the world over. The result: a resurgence in the popularity of comic book movies and heroes. Heroes like Spider-man are given new life on film, and more obscure properties like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man also have film adaptations in the works. Who better to ride this wave of popularity amongst comic heroes, than the original comic book superhero (I'm going to be a pedantic nerd here, but the first being considered a fictional superhero was a somewhat obscure French character, whose super powers essentially amounted to being able to see in the dark, but I'm not talking about that.) I'm talking about Superman. Superman has become the archetype of a superhero. A being wearing tights, spandex and a cape, possessing amazing powers normal humans do not, fighting crime as a moral duty to society. Superman has been, and is the quintessential american superhero, as well as an American icon. He has been depicted and re-depicted ever since his first appearance in 1938. From radio to Television to books to his native comic books, he has always fought crime and corruption "in a never ending struggle for truth, justice, and the American way." What better superhero to star in a film at height of the superhero craze. So, to achieve such, Warner Brothers and DC comics brought in Zack Synder (300, Watchmen) as director, and visionary Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight trilogy) to create Man of Steel, another version of the Superman story. Does it manage to achieve the high quality of the Avenger films and the Dark Knight trilogy, whilst also maintaining the essentially good-natured spirit of Superman. Well..., let's just take look at it.
     Based on the character published by DC comics, and created by Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster, Man of Steel follows the story of Kal-El, an infant on the planet Krypton. His father, scientist Jor-El (Russel Crowe), has deduced the planet will eventually self-destruct, killing all who live on it. As such, he tries to convince the high council to try to evacuate the citizens. However, the Council is briefly overthrown by General Zod (Michael Shannon), who proceeds to try to capture Jor-El for a device called the Codex, which contains the genetic code for all of the citizens of Krypton. To save both the race and his son, he infuses the code into his son's body, and sends him on a rocket into space. Zod, in a fit of rage, kills Jor-El. However, the Council defeats Zod's forces, and they subsequently punish Zod and his loyal followers by exiling them to the mysterious Phantom Zone. Meanwhile, Kal lands on the planet Earth in Kansas, where he is found and cared for by farmers Martha (Diane Lane) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner.) They decide to name him Clark. Young Clark has enhanced capabilities such as X-ray vision, super strength, Heat ray vision and flight. At first, these abilities cause him trouble, as he struggles to both control his abilities, and conceal them. However, he slowly begins to control and use his powers for the greater good. This brings the ire of his father, who feels he shouldn't do so at such a young age. At one point, Jonathan decides to show Clark the spaceship he landed in, and also a mysterious object with symbol resembling an S. One day, whilst getting into argument with his father over his use of his powers, a tornado arrives. Whilst the family flees, the family dog is left in the car. Clark's father goes to rescue the dog, but as a result, is unable to escape the tornado. Just as Clark goes to save him, Jonathan refuses help, and is killed as a result. Flash forward 20 or so years, and we see the now adult Clark Kent ( Henry Cavill) as a bearded vagabond, travelling around doing good deeds. His travels bring him to a defunct Kryptonian ship in the Artic, where he learns his origin as well as the origin of his people from the "consciousness" of Jor-El, and acquires a suit with the S symbol (revealed to be the symbol of his house, which means hope.) In the ship, he also meets reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams). She is there to write on the military installations surrounding the Kryptonian ship, and stumbled upon it. Lois, intrigued by her mysterious savior, decides to investigate his origin. Meanwhile, Clark returns to his widowed mother, now confident about his origin. However, soon a threat arrives that threatens the Earth. General Zod and his minions have escaped the Phantom Zone, and is now trying to reestablish the lost Kryptonian species. He is brought to Earth by the distress signal brought by the Artic ship when Clark activated it. Zod intents to terraform Earth to make it more like Krypton, and use the genetic code infused in Clark body to repopulate it with Genetically engineered Kryptonians, all the while eradicating the human population. Can Superman stop Zod from enacting his plans, killing his adopted people in the process?
    What I will say in this movie's defense, is that many of the concepts it introduced are quite fascinating. The design of Krypton at the beginning is very interesting, and creative. The society it introduces is also somewhat interesting. The idea that Superman's powers caused him trouble when he was young, and he had to master them has potential. Finally, Zod's plan to turn the earth into Krypton is a legitimately good idea in and of itself. Overall, it has some nice concepts behind it...
    But it has a number of problems. First, and definately foremost is WHY DOES THE "S" ON SUPERMAN'S HAVE TO BE A SYMBOL? I'm serious, the whole "the S-shaped symbol around Superman is actually a Kryptonian symbol of hope" really bothered me throughout the feature. Why is this needed? This is not Batman. Batman's symbol, the bat, makes sense, it's meant to strike fear into the heart of the criminal element. Superman's S is a purely aesthetic choice, just meant to indicate it's Superman (or Bizarro).  Is it really necessary to make the S a symbol of hope? I mean, why not just make it an S, you know, for Superman. And as for the whole, "well, it's meant to show that Superman's suit comes from Krypton," Well, why couldn't he just sew the S on to the costume? The more you think about it, the less sense it makes. Alright, let's move away from that for the moment.  Let's go to the other pieces. First, the acting is soulless. It's almost like a Shaymalam film, where most of the acting has no emotion to it. Every actor doesn't emote very well, and what we get is a cast full of bland actors. And I know many of them can act (I know that Amy Adams has more charisma in her acting then what is displayed here.) The plot is okay, though I did have a problem with them basically redoing Batman Begins with Superman. Except that Superman and Batman are fundamentally differing personalities. Superman is driven by his morals, the ideals his adopted parents installed into him when he was growing up. He uses his powers to do good, because his adopted parents taught him to do that with his powers, and he wants to help people as a result. Batman is driven by his anger. He wants revenge on the system that allowed his parents to be murdered in front of him. So, he takes it upon himself to wage a personal war against crime in his parents honor, and prevent what happened to his parents happen again. Turning Superman into Batman in a Superman costume does not work, because the two heroes are fundamentally different. Also, just a pet peeve, but why does it not go into chronological order regarding the flashback. Why not go the "Batman Begins" route (Yeah, yeah, I know I just said that this film was very similar to that one, but not in this sense.), and just put the flashbacks in order. You know, so that we could see the character grow, see him  slowly develop his skills, and eventually become Superman. It has worked before. It worked in the 90's animated series, where the chronology followed that exact pattern. Moving away from the plot, the dark tone does not work well with Superman. Now, don't get me wrong, it is possible to juxtapose a dark tone with Superman.  However, this seems too dark a tone to go with in a Superman movie. The tone almost reminds me of... hey, wait! Look, the dark tone may have worked for the Dark Knight trilogy, but that doesn't mean it could work for a Superman film. Especially since Superman is such as optimistic and light-hearted series. Whilst that explanation doesn't mean that Superman can't have drama or complex characterization, that sort of style is integral to Superman, and is the reason for his continued success. Another thing that is wrong with this is the very fact that it is a tone from the Dark Knight. It doesn't change. You could try a different approach with this film, but instead, they decided to recycle the tone of the Dark Knight, and expects it to work here, even though this is not a Batman movie.
    Alright, so Man of Steel isn't necessarily a great film. Is it the worst? No. I have seen far, far worst films than this, just browsing the episode guide of Mystery Science Theater 3000. However, it suffers from a number of flaws and faults that prevent it from attaining greatness. It has some good ideas that could have worked. However, the combination of bad acting and an attempt to replicate the Dark Knight with Superman bogs it down severely. My score is a 40%, has some good ideas, but isn't overall good. Who would I recommend it to? Well, I can't really recommend it to anyone. If you like the Dark Knight Trilogy, and feel you could tolerate it's repetition, than I suppose you would enjoy this film. Otherwise, for Zack Synder fans, it doesn't have any of his trademarks, for action fans, the action is more loud and bombastic than enjoyable (at least in my opinion.), and overall, it doesn't really have much of the spirit or charm of Superman to recommend it to fans of the character. However, this is only my opinion. If you enjoyed the film, fine, I respect that, you have your tastes. However, if you disagree with me, and want to express it in the comments, just try to be respectful of my opinion. Thank you for reading, and have a nice day.