New Release with No Spoilers: Avengers: Endgame (2019)

No Spoilers Here - Read Away!

Directors: Anthony and Joe Russo

What a titanic piece of work, and one that takes more than a few risks. That is why it is a highly impressive follow-up to last year's Infinity War, and a wonderfully fitting final chapter to the Marvel Cinematic Universe's (MCU) first decade of blockbuster movie domination.

Before getting into my general thoughts, I should point out that Endgame, like its predecessor Infinity War, is not a friendly film for those unfamiliar with the seminal films of the MCU. For the last few years, the MCU has been better described as a large-scale film series rather than a group of individual films which take place in the same "universe". While a viewer certainly doesn't need to have seen all 21 of the previous MCU films, seeing at least a half dozen specific ones will provide far greater context for the events in Endgame. My personal recommendations for the highly recommended "homework" films would be:

Iron Man
Captain America: The First Avenger
The Avengers
Thor: The Dark World
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
Captain America: Civil War
The Avengers: Infinity War
Ant-Man and The Wasp

There are a few other films that one could watch in order to fully understand some of the lesser plot points and gags in Endgame, but the nine listed above will give one a very solid foundation upon which to enjoy the new movie without feeling lost.

This being the "no spoiler" section, I cannot dive into the plot points except to state that Endgame spends a fair bit of time dealing with the fallout of Thanos's "snap" from Infinity War, with which he used the Infinity Gauntlet to literally annihilate half of the population of the known universe at the end of the previous film. The surviving superheroes grapple with the unfathomable loss just like everyone else - with varying degrees of success and failure. Some eventually move on. Others wallow in sad states of guilt and loss. Eventually, a possible and highly risky form of salvation is presented and those heroes left behind pull themselves together to try and enact it in an effort to bring back the countless numbers of people lost.

One of the movie's many strengths is seeing who among the
survivors ends up teaming together in the name of the new
mission laid out by Endgame.

Perhaps the thing that stands out to me about Endgame is just how different the pace and tone are, compared to Infinity War. That previous movie had an extremely brisk pace and plenty of action, right from the jump. Endgame takes a much different approach, using nearly all of the first act (which clocks in at nearly an hour) in a somber mood, looking at the familiar characters dealing with their grief and some still searching for solutions. It's not without humor, to be sure, but the moments of levity are fewer and further between than any MCU film I can recall. For a dedicated fan of the MCU like myself, however, this was a very welcome and all-but-necessary shift, coming on the heels of such a wild and devastating end to Infinity War. Viewers not familiar with the main characters' backstories are likely to be bored by the slower pace, but such is always the case when one picks up a series in its final chapter. Once the second act begins, though, things pick up quite briskly.

The second act of the movie was a very fun one, despite being the most obvious form of fan service in the entire 22-film MCU. This is not to say that it felt contrived or pandering. It actually does make complete sense within the plot of the movie, all while offering real fanboys and fangirls tons of "wink wink, nudge nudge" moments for about an hour, as we recall the many, many details from earlier movies referenced in this part of the epic film. It all culminates in scenes teased, suggested, and hoped for based on Infinity War - a third-act battle sequence of huge proportions and featuring just about every major and secondary character from the 21 previous MCU movies. And as they've done with their three previous MCU movies, the Russos show that they know how to do immensely entertaining, large-scale action.

I don't think it's giving anything away to mention that time travel plays more than a small role in this movie (how else did we think the surviving Avengers might seek to undo Thanos's galactic genocide?). As with any story that uses time travel as a device, the plot can get messy and confusing if one thinks too much about it. Endgame doesn't get too bogged down in the weeds on this, which is probably for the best, but it does raise certain questions that I'm yet to come up with answers to, despite mulling them over for a good 48 hours after watching the movie. There are also a few other unresolved plot threads that may give you an un-scratchable itch, but there's nothing that torpedoes the main thrust of the story.

The other aspect at the heart of this film is the characters. Like the narrative, the Russos throw us more than a couple of curve balls here, presenting some heroes as totally shattered emotionally (and not always the ones you expect) while others remain staunchly dedicated to the seemingly futile search for a way to bring everyone back. It is during these inner struggles that it helps to know about the characters since knowing about their past motivations and relationships with each other adds greatly to the emotional impact of the entire movie, especially the first and second acts. And for fans who have enjoyed the emotional heart of this series going back to the earliest seminal movies Iron Man and Captain America: The First Avenger, the ending should be immensely satisfying.

***Since writing the above, I've seen the film an additional two times and thoroughly enjoyed its full length all three times. Of course, I'm a tremendous fan of this series, but it speaks very highly of such a long film that even a dedicated fan can gain so much enjoyment from it.

Spoiler Section - Beware!!!

So let's get into this thing a little more. I could probably write a 20,000-word rabbit hole piece about so many specific details and how I loved or disliked them, but I'll stick to a few of the larger points.

The time travel. Let's get this out of the way. As a plot device to resolve the devastation unleashed in Infinity War, it was a necessary evil. But evil it still was. Yes, it provides a great reason for our heroes to go back and revisit moments chronicled in several earlier films in the series, and do so in some wonderfully entertaining ways. But still, when one thinks about it all for more than a few moments, it all falls apart rather quickly. If 2014 Thanos, along with his army and Gamorah and Nebula, jumps ahead to 2023 to confront the Avengers and gets annihilated, then you've now obliterated all of the things that Thanos (and his army and daughters) did up to and after Guardians of the Galaxy. That has a lot of massive impacts, the most obvious of which is that Thanos is now no longer around to kick of the Infinity War story. On a smaller scale, Steve Rogers going back and staying in the 1940s to live out his life with Peggy Carter (a wonderfully satisfying moment of closure) leaves a ton of unanswerable questions about their relationship, such as why Peggy doesn't ackowledge him as her husband back in The Winter Soldier. And on and on the questions go, leading to a completely shattered continuity. That's by far my biggest issue with this movie. Again, though, it was probably a necessary evil, given exactly what had happened previously.

My other gripes are much smaller and easily shrugged off. The final battle is highly enjoyable, though I could have done without the high amount of posing and the cringe-worthy "She'll have help," up-with-women moment towards the end. Don't get me wrong - I love the women characters in the MCU, and I love seeing them kick ass, whether individually or together. But that moment felt so contrived that it broke my enjoyment of the battle. Oh, and why does anyone, including Peter Parker or anyone else, think that Captain Marvel needs any help to get through a few score foot soldiers? Did they not just see her single-handedly bring down Thanos's immense warship by flying through it in about 10 seconds flat? Those and a few other things had me rolling my eyes a bit, but again - easily shrugged off.

What impressed me the most is how the plot defied my expectations. As I do with all blockbuster movies which I'm eager to see, I completely blocked out any trailers or other information about the movie. That way, it could reveal itself to me upon my first viewing. Endgame rewarded that approach. Having a handful of the remaining Avengers rather quickly track down Thanos and execute him was not something I saw coming, nor was the five year jump in the narrative. And then there was fat Thor, Black Widow's sacrifice, and Steve Rogers electing to go back and reclaim the life he lost in 1945. I really do feel like the writers took some real risks with this story. They could very well have done a full two-and-a-half hour "let's go get Thanos" story, but they elected to focus more on dealing with loss and fighting to undo a horrendous tragedy rather than focus more on a revenge tale. I think this made the movie a great counter-balance and follow-up to Infinity War, which was a very fast-paced film heavily emphasizing action/adventure elements over emotional touchstones.

The curious thing now is the question of where the MCU goes from this point. It was a bold stroke to move the entire universe five years into the future, which threatens to really jerk with the continuity that many of us MCU nerds cherish. The threat of dangling time threads aside, I'm still completely on board with what may come. Right now, there are only a few "known" movies planned, but details are extremely slim. I do hope to see at least one more movie featuring the "Asguardians of the Galaxy," as Portly Thor referred to them. That team-up has a dizzying amount of entertainment potential. 

New Release! Avengers: Infinity War (2018) [Spoiler-Free 1st Section]

Spoiler-Free Section - Have No Fear!

Directors: Joe and Anthony Russo

Fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) will almost definitely love, or at least highly enjoy, Infinity War. Those who are apathetic or even averse to the ever-sprawling juggernaut of superhero films will hardly be won over. In fact, the latter group may very well despise this movie.

Tying together many tiny threads that have been laced throughout the previous 18 MCU films, Infinity War follows Thanos, the "Mad Titan" from the so-named moon, whose grand ambition is to gather all six of the immensely powerful Infinity Stones, gems that allow dominion over aspects of existence such as mind, space, time, and others. Most of the stones have been intermittently introduced in previous MCU films: the Space Stone back in Captain America: The First Avenger; the Mind Stone in The Avengers, and so on. Thanos is an incredibly powerful alien who has long waged a campaign to basically "thin the herd" of populations which have grown too unwieldy to manage themselves. When he determines that a planet has reached such a point, he brings in his armies to kill half the population, at random, leaving the remaining half more than enough resources to flourish. Thanos's ultimate scheme now is to gather and control the six Infinity Stones, granting him the power to eliminate half of the population of the entire universe with no more than the snap of his fingers. To stop him, the many heroic characters from the previous films must use every resource at their disposal.

Right off, I'll admit that Infinity War isn't the best MCU movie. The scale is so epic, and the number of balls needing to be juggled is so large, that there was no way that a single film could provide satisfaction on every possible cinematic and storytelling level. In this movie's case, what gets sacrificed is real emotional depth and notable character development. The movie does actually provide a bit of depth to the imposing Thanos, a character who has only been shown in brief glimpses a handful of times in the previous six years. And there is a sense of loss concerning a couple of key characters. Also, for those who have followed and enjoyed any of the individual characters from previous MCU film series, the third act is bound to have some impact for you. On the whole, though, this is as purely plot-driven a film as the MCU has offered us to date. Anyone who has preferred the smaller-scale MCU flicks like Ant-Man or Spider-Man: Homecoming, thanks to those films' greater focus on a few people and their relationships, may find the flashy, rip-roaring pace of Infinity War too dizzying and shallow.

Yep - that is indeed Spider-Man and Iron Man grouped up
with a few members of Guardians of the Galaxy. Such cross-
over teamings are part of the fun of Infinity War.

For my part, I greatly enjoyed the movie. The directing duo Russo brothers had a lot of moving parts to rein into a single narrative, and they actually did an admirable job of it. This movie is bringing together no less than twenty different characters from well over a half dozen different movie "franchises," and having them band together to try and save quite literally half the universe. The main appeal of such an enterprise boils down to two things: what will the dynamics be when different characters interact, and how exactly will they stop an immensely powerful and determined force like Thanos? Well, the tale does an excellent job of entertaining us through these aspects of the film. Within the first few scenes, we get Spider-Man and Iron Man meeting up with Doctor Strange, and before long Quill and the Guardians of the Galaxy run into a very familiar Asgardian. As the disparate characters begin to coalesce into various teams and fill each other in on exactly who Thanos is and what he wants, the tale comes together in a rather satisfying way. As the heroes attempt to rebuff the initial attacks by Thanos's underlings, their powers, creativity, and mettle are tested in ways that make for some fun viewing.

The ending of this film is already causing some mixed reactions among movie-goers. Though one can assume that certain developments will be undone (the Infinity Stones are virtual game-breakers), there were certainly a few heroes who seem to have truly met their ultimate end. This was bound to upset fans of those particular characters. And while I was expecting a slightly more self-contained movie, I found the ending fine for what it is. The MCU overlords have always billed this movie as the first of what is basically a two-part story, with the second, still-unnamed, chapter set for release in May of 2019. It will feel like a rather long wait for the follow-up, but I believe that it is set up to actually be the stronger of the two films. Much of Infinity War had to be given over to set-up and Thanos's blitzkrieg attack, and when it is all said and done, it will likely feel more like acts one and two of the greater whole.

Infinity War is a success, for what it is. It's what DC films like Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman were trying to be in many ways but mostly failed to be. Short of making a TV-style, five or six-hour mini-series, this movie was never going to have enough time to please everyone across the movie-viewing spectrum. I think the Russo's trimmed away what they needed in order to create a cohesive movie. It's far from the most heart-felt or ponderous MCU flick, but it's strong popcorn entertainment for those looking for fantasy action/adventure of the superhero variety.

Fun fact - this exact scene never actually happens in the film,
but scenes very similar to it do unfold. Good to see Okoye get
a few good moments and one-liners in there, too.

Spoiler Section!! Beware!!!

Here is where I get into a few of the details that I enjoyed or didn't, and nearly all of them could potentially ruin some of the fun for you, if you haven't seen the movie yet.

As covered generally above, the greatest weakness of this movie is simply that there just isn't enough time for any character, or even group of characters, to particularly shine. One thing I've loved about my favorite among the MCU movies is that several of the characters have developed clear personalities, which themselves can carry a movie. Tony Stark and Steve Rogers are the two most obvious, but even less prominent characters like Doctor Strange or Bucky Barnes/The Winter Soldier have compelling enough backgrounds to make them engaging. Due to the reality of time constraints, however, no character is given much more than fifteen minutes of total screen time, and much of that is action. Amazingly, the writers did work in several solid dialogue exchanges that included some solid humor, but the scope of the film and its plot demands were such that one was bound to be disappointed by how little exposure their favorite characters would get. Ant-Man and Hawkeye aren't even in the film at all, despite the former having one film on the shelf and a sequel coming in a mere two months.

Another unfortunate result of the massive scale of the movie is that the losses don't have the emotional impact that one would hope for. Part of this is because of the limited dedication to emotional depth. Again, if one has fallen in love with certain characters, then the impact will be there, but that will have to have come from your previous viewing(s) of those characters' own movies. The deepest emotional tale in the movie involved Gamora and Thanos, but Gamora's death will only have resonance if one has enjoyed the two Guardians of the Galaxy movies (and for my part, I never found the connection between her and Quill terribly organic). And the demise of a character like Loki, one of the cornerstone villains of the MCU, lacks the power that it could have had in another stand-alone "Thor" movie. This is all to say nothing of the fact that the mere existence of the Infinity Stones tells us that whatever happens can be changed or undone, which is what I fully expect will happen in next year's follow-up film, though not everyone will be resurrected.

Oh, and we never get to see the Hulk really "smash," which is something I've greatly enjoyed in the previous two Avengers movies and Ragnarok. It is pretty cool that Thanos's raw physical strength is made clear by his almost dismissive thrashing of the jade giant early in the picture, but it would have been nice to see him leaping around and pounding a few platoons of alien invaders into Wakandan rhino meat. I have to assume that this is all a setup for Banner's Hulk persona to make a big splash in the sequel.

Those are my "superhero fanboy" gripes, and they are what keeps Infinity War from being among my absolute favorite MCU movies. When I set aside my fandom and just look at it as an objective cinephile, the movie fares worse, for reasons I mostly cover in the first section of this review. But I am a massive fan of these films, so it is in this vein that I describe what I enjoyed.

The movie does a decent job of elevating Thanos above being
a mere mindless, power-mad force of destruction. This has
been a severe weakness in many of the MCU films.

As stated, I think the actual plot is extremely well-managed. While Thanos's motivation is rather simplistic, I can justify that when I consider that most massive-scale zealots become that way by oversimplifying complex dilemmas. Rather than try to use creativity or imagination to solve large-scale population problems, Thanos falls back on brutal genocide and justifies it by telling himself that he is doing an honorable and difficult task which only he has the strength and will to carry out. I'm glad that the writers did find a way to add a couple of extra layers to the giant purple killing machine in the way of his backstory and his connection to Gamora. They weren't exactly high emotional drama, but they worked well enough.

And the many heroes' planet-jumping dash to find and stop the Mad Titan is spun very well. Especially if one has followed the various characters in the previous films, there is a very logical progression as to how they seek each other out and ultimately muster for their grand defense in Wakanda. Speaking of, I actually rather enjoyed the movie's use of the fictional African country as the staging ground for much of the ultimate battle. Even though I had just rewatched Black Panther the weekend before seeing Infinity War, I was far from tired of the setting.

With where things stand in the MCU currently - with literally half of the population obliterated, including half of our beloved heroes - this should be a great moment for the MCU to "clean things up," so to speak. I think if Infinity War shows us anything, it's that there is a breaking point for just how many "superhero" characters one put in a a movie and still have that movie provide depth as well as rousing action. Captain America: Civil War was just barely on the right side of that line, while I think Infinity War crossed over to the wrong side of it a bit, watering down what is in many ways a fun flick. Now, however, if MCU president Kevin Feige and his creative team play their cards right, they can pare things back a bit. Once Thanos is dealt with and much of his damage undone (I presume the Time Stone will play a fairly big part in this), the universe can probably be reworked a bit, allowing the future films' creators to go in directions different from what we've yet seen. I'm still well on board, even these ten years later.

Re-Watch Report (Still Spoilers...)

I enjoyed the movie enough to go take it in, IMAX 3-D style, ten days after the first viewing. I'm pleased to say that I enjoyed it even a little more upon a second viewing, even if it doesn't change a few of the purely, objective "story" weaknesses that it will never escape. To whit, full enjoyment of this film simply requires that the viewer has seen at least eight of the previous 18 MCU films. Without that familiarity with the characters' backstories, most or all of the emotional weight is simply not there.

For one like me, on the other hand, who is a big enough fan to have watched every single previous MCU film multiple times, this movie does hold up exceptionally well. As with most movies, the first viewing was all about seeing the plot unfold. With that out of the way, I was able to focus more on the pacing, visuals, intricacies of the narrative, and even the action choreography. Somewhat surprisingly, all of these aspects hold up extemely well under closer scrutiny.

As far as the action, thanks to seeing it on an IMAX screen, I was once again reminded of just how good the Russo brothers are at fight scene design and pacing. I'm generally not a particular fan of action films, but I do greatly appreciate very well-done action sequences that are neither too fast (I'm looking at you Paul Greengrass and the Bourne movies) nor addicted to slow-motion (looking even harder at you, Michael Bay). As they did with their two previous Captain America films, the Russos do brilliantly with Infinity War, which is on a much larger, literally interplanetary scale. It would have been really easy for them to lean too heavily on the CGI and simply send a bunch of digital garbage flying across the screen at all moments. Instead, they actually offer more than a few wide shots, use negative space, and give certain sequences enough room to breath a bit. This all greatly enhances the scope and scale of the larger moments, both those involving action and those which are more meditative.

The other strength that emerges is the larger theme of sacrifice and its connection to one's soul. The running question through Infinity War is: is a single life worth sacrificing, if it is likely to guarantee the safety of many, perhaps millions or more, other lives? From the opening sequences right through to the end, this question is faced by several different characters, with different choices being made. Heimdall decides that his own life is worth losing to give the universe a chance to fend of Thanos. Loki makes as if he's willing to give up Thor's life to save his own, only to turn the tables and lose his own life. Quill faces the choice of having to kill Gamora, at her behest, in order to prevent Thanos from being able to use her. And on it goes. It's not shocking that Thanos is willing to sacrifice the daughter he loves to his greater cause. Much more curiously, though, is that not every "hero" makes the choice to value the single life of a loved one over the many other lives at stake. Quill actually pulls the trigger on Gamora, and Wanda makes the move to destroy the Mind Stone, in effect killing her beloved Vision. The ultimate emotional fallout from these decisions will hopefully be explored in next year's Avengers film, but it all serves as a clear running theme that draws a fairly clear line between Thanos and those who seek to stop his mad scheme.

For anyone still considering it, I would suggest seeing the movie in IMAX. Much of the movie was actually filmed with IMAX cameras, so it fits the screens perfectly, and it really brings out the epic scale of everything. The 3-D is also well-done, so it's worth it, if that's your thing. More importantly is that the movie really is a great one for MCU fans. Few things prove that more than when one enjoys it even more upon a second viewing, as I did. 

Retro Trio, Christopher Nolan Edition: The Prestige (2006); Inception (2010); Interstellar (2014)

This little themed set of reviews started with a late-night viewing of The Prestige, and ended up with my discovering that I had never reviewed Inception, which I did re-watch only about a month ago. From there, it was a small jump to add Interstellar, which I only saw once when it was released. 

The Prestige (2006)

It speaks well for a movie when you put it on late at night with the intention of watching maybe 30 minutes while you drift into sleep, and then you realize that it's past midnight and you have every intention of watching every last second of the remaining hour of the movie. This is even more impressive when it's a movie you've seen several times already, as I had with The Prestige before this most recent viewing.

Coming out a little over a year after his true breakout smash hit, Batman Begins, this movie solidified just what Christopher Nolan can do with a large budget. Though completely different in subject and presentation than his take on the famous DC superhero, The Prestige bore all of the hallmarks of Nolan's writing and directing: a non-linear narrative; a surprise ending; a dark general tone; extremely slick visuals; Michael Caine. Nolan's films virtually all blend these elements into solid films.

The Prestige tells the tale of two rival magicians (or "illusionists", as Gob Bluth would demand) in the early 20th century who become viciously obsessed with defeating each other, at first professionally but eventually in every way. Getting their start together as assistants to a more established stage magician in London, one of them accidentally has a hand in the death of the other's wife. This sets of a chain of events in which each one attempts to sabotage the other's act while establishing himself as the premier stage magician in London. The sabotage attempts grow ever-more-dangerous, even leading to maiming and an eventual arrest for murder.

Borden and Angier, two budding magicians before their lethal
rivalry develops. There is refreshing shift in just who is the
more sympathetic character as the plot progresses.

The story has plenty of intrigue built into it already, but Nolan enhances it with his narrative choices. Similar to his approach in Memento, he tells the story by alternating between past and present, giving us a chance to see the steps that led to the deadly opposition between two past colleagues. And not unlike that earlier movie, this is one that is likely to inspire you to want to see it again immediately after your first viewing, just so that you can follow the meaning of the earlier parts of the movie better, once you have the complete picture. I always appreciate how Nolan has fun with how he orders his narratives, and he has a strong enough grasp of the technique that it adds solid entertainment value.

This isn't to say that the movie is flawless. Similar to other Nolan movies, the romantic relationships are never really fleshed out. Despite having very good actors in the key roles - Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Scarlett Johannsen, and Rebecca Hall - the romance between the different pairs never feels completely natural. It's hardly the most essential part of this movie, but it is relevant enough so that the lack of completely authentic emotions results in a dulled impact at certain moments in the movie.

I suppose the one other minor criticism that I can level at the movie is that there is a truly supernatural element thrown into a movie which is otherwise all about the art of slight-of-hand. This element of the truly fantastic works quite well, given how it is introduced and used, but I would understand if some viewers find it more than a little out of place. Perhaps even as a slight bit of cheating, even.

Among Christopher Nolan's films, I would actually rate this among his very best, which for me are The Dark Knight and Inception. Anyone who happened to miss this one would do well to go back and watch it.

Inception (2010)

One could divide Nolan's movies into "original" and "adapted" groups. While the former group would include the Dark Knight trilogy and a remake like Insomnia, Inception would fall into the latter category. And like few directors, Nolan's originals are equal to or arguably better than his adapted films.

If you haven't seen it, Inception focuses on Cobb, an expert in the field of extraction - a method of entering another person's dreams and retrieving ideas. Cobb's services are highly prized by corporate raiders who seek to pull valuable corporate secrets out of the minds of their competitors. However, Cobb is on the run from U.S. law enforcement, as he is the prime suspect in his wife's murder. To clear his name in order to return home to his children, Cobb accepts a highly risky but possibly life-changing job of performing the questionable act of inception - the technique of implanting, rather than extracting, an idea into a person's mind. Cobb assembles a team to help him create a complex series of dream worlds through which they can enter their target's mind and incept the appropriate idea.

In keeping with the stories that Nolan usually tells, Inception unfolds on several levels. Early in the movie, we are introduced to the concept of extraction and even the notion of a dream within a dream. In the third act, though, we eventually are watching a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream (that's five levels, if you didn't count). It can be a bit disorienting or even frustrating, if you're not paying close attention. If you are, however, it can be a really fun and creative ride. Each dream takes place in a distinct environment with its own look and feel, with each one offering some new insight as to how the concepts of inception and extraction work. It helps that there is a tension and urgency built into each dream level, allowing the suspense to pull us along. Nolan has always had fun with how he plays with narratives, and it seems like he was having a blast with this one.

The dream-world hotel hallway fight scene is one of the most
cinematically dazzling sequences in recent times.

The visuals are possibly the best in any Nolan film, which is saying something. He has done some spectacular things on film, but Inception probably features several of his most iconic images. From the folding cities to the slow motion world explosions to the fight in the rotating hotel room, this movie offered a ton of scenes and sequences that are unlikely to be forgotten once seen. Add these to the sleek look and feel of every shot and frame typical to Nolan's pictures, and you have a movie that is visually wondrous to behold.

Upon this most recent viewing, something else finally dawned on me - the terror in the concept of being infected with an idea that you cannot banish. And if that idea is urging you to kill yourself and your loved ones? That is truly the stuff of nightmares and insanity. Inception teases this idea out and drives it home in dramatic fashion, and it was only recently that I recognized just how disturbing it is.

I remember really enjoying Inception  when it was first released, while still having a few gripes about it. There were a few questions I didn't feel were fully addressed, and some parts of the movie tried my patience a bit. Now that I have re-watched it a few times, though, I find it easier to accept the flaws as minor. The movie is actually a rarity for the last decade - a high-quality, big-budget movie that is completely original. Nearly every other mainstream, popular movie has been adapted from a book or series (Harry Potter, anything YA), has been a remake of an earlier movie or franchise (Star Trek, Star Wars), or is a sequel to a previous blockbuster (The Fast and the Furious, among others). This fact makes me root for movies like Inception and appreciate them all the more.

Interstellar (2014)

Nolan shot for the literal and figurative stars with this one. My original review is here.

Upon a second viewing, this film holds up fairly well, and I felt a tad more forgiving about a few of the elements which puzzled or annoyed me back in 2014. Matthew McConaughey's voice is still a nuisance, but a few of the performances which I previously questioned no longer agitate me. And I actually found a little more enjoyment in a few sequences which I felt dragged during my first viewing.

I still consider Interstellar one of Nolan's weaker movies, but this is very relative. Even his worst films are considerably better than most large-scale, epic Hollywood films. Curiously, I think that it will ultimately be looked upon by future viewers much more kindly than the previous year's critical darling Gravity - a movie which amazed me once but which I have never felt the need to watch again, and whose weaknesses are jarring and more obvious with every passing year. I do not foresee such a fate for Interstellar. It's not 2001 or Tarkovsky's Solaris, but it is strong enough to earn a mention and some comparison with those titans of science fiction films about space exploration.

I generally haven't changed my original feelings about the movie, except for one main aspect. I've come to a slightly better acceptance of the forces which bring Cooper back in touch with his daughter. Slightly. I do still find it rather sentimental to use the premise that love spans any breadth of space or time, but I appreciated just how the story is organized and weaves the concept into the overall tale.

Cooper and his crew on a new planet. This was arguably the
most stunning sequences among several strong
contenders. Nolan never slacks on visuals.

One other merit which I failed to fully appreciate on my first viewing was the music. The score, composed, by longtime movie score maestreo Hans Zimmer, is wonderfully affecting. Maybe it's just my love of organ music, but I could find myself watching some of the visual sequences multiple times just to take in the pairing with the music.

Nolan's movies make up an unusually high percentage of the rather small number of movies that I own (out of the 30 blu rays that I have, 4 of them are Nolan films). I'm obviously someone who enjoys his films enough to splurge for them, knowing that I will watch them repeatedly. Yet I still feel no need to buy Interstellar. I think it is a good movie, but not one that I will need to watch again any time soon, if ever. 

Retro Trio: Sorcerer (1977); The World's End (2013); Ghost World (2001)

Sorcerer (1977)

Director: William Friedkin

An adequate but ultimately inferior and arguably unnecessary remake of a classic 1950s film.

Sorcerer is a spiritually faithful remake of the 1953 movie The Wages of Fear by Henri-Georges Clouzet. Though each film takes place roughly in the time that it was released, the 23-year difference between them matters little. The basic story follows a handful of shady drifters from different countries, all stuck in a small town in South America. All of them have long since run from something else, but all are desperate to finally return to their respective home countries. So desperate, in fact, that they agree to take an extremely high-risk, high-reward job in order to get the funds needed to leave. The job requires them to drive two trucks filled with highly volatile nitroglycerin across 200 miles of pock-marked dirt roads, so that the explosives can be used to collapse a runaway oil burn. These basics, along with the element of suspense which they set up, are the same in both movies.

Where Sorcerer differs from the original film is mostly in the time it spends on back story. Clouzet's film begins in the small village and spends the first 30-odd minutes there. Friedkin, however, opted to show how the four primary drivers ended up in their predicament. Perhaps unsurprisingly for the director of The Exorcist and The French Connection, the men's tales paint a grim picture. All four are varying degrees of despicable, with serious blood on their hands and misery in their wakes. While this does add a grimness to the movie that Clouzet's lacked, I actually found it a very effective device, as there is a fascination born of seeing if a quartet of vicious, haunted men can actually work together towards a common goal under deadly circumstances.

In nearly all other respects, though, I have to say that Clouzet's original is superior to Friedkin's. It's been about ten years since the one and only time that I saw The Wages of Fear, but I loved it and it always stuck with me.While it doesn't depict the drivers' nefarious backstories, it does strongly imply that these are desperate and somewhat unsavory men. Once they start to make the treacherous journey in their trucks, the movie is far better than Sorcerer. The tension and suspense is more consistently engaging. Whereas Sorcerer has several overly long scenes relying more on set pieces and drawn-out, repetitive action, The Wages of Fear sparks your engagement with one quietly deadly situation after another. Friedkin's movie does have some really good moments of suspense, but they don't stack up to the source material in either quantity or quality.

Sorcerer is a decent enough movie that suffers most from being a remake of an earlier masterpiece. Friedkin, as great a director as he was, probably should have left this one alone.

The World's End (2013)

Director: Edgar Wright

The second time I watched this one from start to finish, and it's even better than I had remembered. And what I remembered was a great movie.

Director Edgar Wright and writer/actor Simon Pegg wrote The World's End as the third and final installment of their "Cornetto Trilogy", a series of films connected mostly by their hilarious appropriation of well-known popular movie genres. This last film drew much of its inspiration from the science-fiction realm, most notably the classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Wright and Pegg had done this before, using George Romero's zombie flicks to inspire Shawn of the Dead and any number of Hollywood action cop movies to create Hot Fuzz. As great as those first two film are, The World's End outdoes them and showcases its writers' brilliance for creating entertaining, clever, and even thoughtful movies.

For the entire first act of the movie, a first-time viewer might wonder just where the science fiction is. The set up centers on Gary King (Simon Pegg), an alcoholic who peaked during his senior year of high school and, as he nears forty, decides to round up his old pals for a reunion pub crawl in their hometown. Once Gary convinces his reluctant former comrades to join (and enable) him and go back home, they soon find that their old pubs have all been homogenized by franchizing. This is the first glimpse of the sci-fi iceberg looming beneath the movie's first 30 minutes. As the fellows progress in their crawl, they discover that most of the town's denizens have been replaced by some sort of automated replicants, complete with their actual memories.

In the spirit of the classic movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The World's End uses its fantastic fictional elements to comment upon the homogenization of society. Whereas that earlier film was a thinly-veiled response to the utopian promises of communism, Wright and Pegg's film is a response to corporate sterilization of culture. There are several engaging exchanges that tap into deeper questions about individuality and youth-worship, among other rich topics. Carrying much of the load is a brilliant performance by Simon Pegg, who shows his surprising and impressive acting range in this movie. His Gary King character evokes several different emotions, and his arc is a surprisingly fascinating one.

I've become a real fan of Edgar Wright, and this movie is the one that solidified it for me.

Ghost World (2001)

Director: Terry Zwigoff

I hadn't seen this one since shortly after it was released 15 years ago. It still holds up very well as a funny, thoughtful drama about people who dwell outside of the mainstream. With hindsight, it is also clear that Ghost World was a rather early version of a style more widely popularized later in movies like Garden State and Juno. When compared to those more recent movies, I actually enjoy Ghost World a bit more.

Based on the graphic novel of the same name, the film focuses mostly on Enid (Thora Birch), a rather snarky, hip, 18-year old misfit who looks for inventive ways to stave off boredome during the summer following their senior year in high school. She and her equally-disaffected best friend Rebecca (Scarlett Johannson) tease and torment their friend Josh and hang around their more mainstream classmates just enough to mock and scoff at them. If this sounds a little jerky, it's because it is. Enid and Rebecca do make fun of some things which are worthy of mockery, but they're not exactly noble souls themselves.

Things are taken a little too far when, on a lark, Enid responds to a personal add and pretends to be a woman called for in the add. Enid and Rebecca stake out and watch as the man who placed the add (Steve Buscemi) arrives at the designated area to be unwittingly stood up. After watching the man wait hopefully and then leave dejected, Enid and Rebecca follow him to a garage sale. Enid buys an old record from the man, whose name is Seymour, and she makes a connection with him. Much of the rest of the story involves Enid trying to find a romantic interest for the introverted Seymour, deal with her changing relationship with the Rebecca, and pass a summer art class which she needs to officially receive her high school diploma. On the surface, it could be the plot to many coming-of-age films.

And yet, the novelty lies in the details. Typical of a Terry Zwigoff film, there is plenty of quirky and unexpected humor and drama. The characters are quite different from those in more popular teen movies. Enid, even more than Rebecca, typifies the condition that some young people experience when they have a far clearer idea of what they don't want than what they do. While this is familiar, neither Enid nor Rebecca are portrayed as loveable darlings whom the audience is clearly meant to support. They do selfish and even mean things, even if they aren't essentially mean people. This lends some drama to moments such as when Enid befriends Seymour, or when she breaks down as her friendship with Rebecca deteriorates. Thanks to the steady development of dimensions beyond our initial impressions of the characters, these moments have some heft.

Not every little joke hits, and not every action in the story feels totally organic. But there are enough laughs and enough authenticity to make for a good movie. I may not need to watch it again soon, if ever, but it's nice to see that a noted "cult" movie still holds up.

New Release! Captain America: Civil War

No Spoilers Up Here

Directors: Anthony and Joe Russo

My viewing of this latest summer blockbuster was an experience quite unique for me. I can't recall ever seeing a movie in which my worst pre-conceived concern was realized, and yet its realization somehow resulted in my being more impressed with the movie.

Anyone who knows me or reads this blog with any regularity knows that I am a tremendous fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). I've watched each of the previous 12 movies multiple times, and I've seen every single one of the hundred-plus episodes of the MCU TV shows, many of them twice. Since the Universe expanded to unprecedented size, roughly two years ago, I've been concerned that the movies would be unable to tell their own stand-alone stories. This has actually come to pass, but Captain America: Civil War manages to handle the weight extraordinarily well.

Even a fervent fan of the MCU like me must admit that Civil War is not exactly friendly to new viewers. If someone has not seen, at the very least, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Avengers: Age of Ultron, then there are many characters and storylines which will baffle. The movie assumes that viewers are familiar with not only the title character's origins and recent film exploits, but also has knowledge of no fewer than a half dozen other characters introduced in the last few films. Without that knowledge, Civil War will just be a blur of costumed super-people debating, fighting, and firing off some decent one-liners. At this point, this is simply an unavoidable consequence of the immensity and structure of the MCU.

If, on the other hand, a viewer has at least seen the aforementioned couple of movies, then they have enough context to thoroughly enjoy what is one of the most unique films in the MCU. Like The Winter Soldier, Civil War tackles themes which are much larger and relevant to the real world than simply stopping an evil villain from blowing up cities. This movie takes on the dilemma of how much freedom the world should grant individuals or groups who are possessed of devastating power. Should a person or group with the ability to cause mass destruction be sanctioned and forced into oversight? Or should they be granted the freedom to act independently, especially when it might allow them to more effectively protect others? These questions could just as easily be applied to dominant entities like powerful countries or corporations, not merely superpowered beings in a fantasy world. Civil War doesn't take easy ways out, either. There is plenty of gray area here, and it does not leave viewers with pat answers about who is right or wrong. In fact, there is a distinct possibility that you may come away thinking that the title hero was not completely in the right, which is quite novel for an MCU film.

Along with and connected to the morally ambiguous theme of unchecked power is an adversary who is quite unique to the MCU. To remain spoiler-free, I'll leave out the details, but I can say that it is a refreshing and challenging break from the rogues gallery mostly made up of thoroughly evil and megalomaniacal villains who have served as punching bags in nearly all other MCU movies. Just as unique is that the adversary takes a virtual backseat to the ethical quandaries which the heroes are thrust into.

As with The Winter Soldier, the action and pacing are all that one could ask for. More than any other MCU directors, the Russo brothers have proven to be immensely talented at providing rollicking action sequences that revive the true thrill that should come with blockbuster popcorn movies. Without slighting quieter, more somber moments, the movie offers plenty of small- and large-scale battles that are simply a blast to take in.

One of the smaller-scale fights, but this one between Iron Man
and the duo of The Winter Soldier and Captain America is just
as intense and entertaining as any of the larger ones. 

Perhaps more important to most viewers is not just how the fights look but who is doing the fighting, am I right? Well, there are plenty of the familiar faces which we fans have come to love in these movies. Pretty much every superguy and gal from the previous two movies shows up, with only a few exceptions. As expected, the actors are all tremendous, as many of them have been playing these parts for several years now. The two new additions to the MCU roll call are outstanding (I'll spare you their actual identities, on the off chance that you've somehow avoided the millions of advertisements which tease them). One of the rookies actually is a thematic and emotional keystone through much of the film's main story, without stealing the thunder of the primary players. It was a very deftly-managed balancing act.

Several MCU posts ago, I half-joked that the MCU should stop naming these movies by their title characters and start simply calling them "MCU 13", "MCU 14", and so on, with the subtitle indicate whether one or two main characters would be featured. Civil War further supported this suggestion, as it is as dependent on previous movies, and leads into future movies, as much as any film in the MCU thus far. Regardless, it provides plenty of engaging action, fun, and deeper themes to be all of the things that a dud like Batman v. Superman tried and failed to be. I'll be going to see this one at least one more time in theaters, and I'll be just as eager to see how the Russo brothers handle the epic Infinity Gauntlet movies coming out in 2018 and 2019.

Update: I've now watched the movie for a second time, and it holds up extremely well. In fact, I enjoyed it even more. There were a few minute points in exposition which did go some way towards answering a few of my niggling little questions. It also helped that I watched the movie in standard format this time, rather than the 3D which I watched initially. For me, 3D can sometimes be a tad disorienting. Without that, I was even better able to appreciate the action choreography.

Spoiler Commentary

Just a few thoughts that may give away a few plot point to those who haven't seen the movie yet. Fair warning.

While I like that the writers are willing to have characters experience change and develop in ways that we might not expect, I'm still having a hard time completely buying where Steve Rogers and Tony Stark came down on the Sokovia Accords. Even as recently as Age of Ultron, Stark was more than willing to act alone if he thought he needed to act quickly and avoid slow bureaucracy (his rogue actions resulting in first Ultron and then Vision). And Rogers was still, even towards the end of that movie, arguing how they needed to come to consensus on certain decisions. In Civil War, though, they completely switch sides. I will say that the writers do provide some support for each character's viewpoint, but it did feel a tad forced.

It was a lot of fun seeing some more creative use and expansion of Ant-Man's powers. Seeing him short-circuit the Iron Man armor from the inside and introduce the Giant-Man mode were the kinds of things that I'll pay to see on the big screen. I hope that the makers of Ant-Man and the Wasp can be equally inspired to show us some clever uses of Scott Lang's equipment.

Tom Holland looks like he'll make a great Spider-Man. A friend of mine and fellow comic book nerd told me how he's tired of the teenage Spider-Man, after the two recent takes on him, and he was ready for an older Peter Parker who could immediately hang with the other heavy hitters in the MCU. I see his point, but Holland did such a good job in Civil War that I think next year's Homecoming could be the best Spidey movie since the second Sam Raimi one back in 2004.

Chadwick Boseman was incredible. Simple as that. His performance in Civil War was all the advertising that 2018's Black Panther will need. 

Before I Die #562: Under the Skin (2014)

This is the 562nd of the 1,172 films on the "Before You Die" list that I am gradually working my way through.

Director: Jonathan Glazer

A very self-assured, measured, and meditative blend of science-fiction and horror.

Under the Skin is a tale of an alien on Earth; Scotland, to be precise. It takes on the appearance of an attractive young woman (Scarlett Johannson), and it uses sexual wiles to lure men into a lair where they are trapped and eventually devoured in a fashion similar to certain insects' prey. Eventually, though, the alien starts to show some slight signs of empathy and self-awareness. This does not seem to sit well with her watcher/guardian, which both assists and monitors her moves.

This movie is unlike nearly any other science-fiction film I've seen, and it is not difficult to see why it is divisive among audiences. Any viewer who tuned in to see a Species-type of exploitation splatter- and sex-fest, or even simply to bask in Scarlett Johannson's physical beauty, was bound to be confounded and disappointed. Though there are a handful of moments with shocking and amazing visuals, Under the Skin is a measured film of very deliberate pace. This leaves a lot of quiet space and time for us viewers to ponder and attempt to make sense of the many unanswered questions about the alien and its motivations. This was bound to be a bit too demanding for those looking for broader or more action-based entertainment.

Since the film leaves out any sort of explicit answers as to the alien's ultimate goals or actions, the movie can be read in many different ways. Some are likely to see it as commentary on sexuality. Others will probably read into it the themes of power and gender. Still others may take away messages about feminism and empathy. All of these possibilities ran through my mind as I watched the alien cruise the human world, initially looking for prey but eventually looking for something which she could feel but not recognize. This is the mark of an interesting and artistic film: one that can be interpreted many ways, with nearly all of the interpretations being valid.

The only thing I can criticize about the movie is that it does drag just a little bit during the second act, when the pattern of the alien finding a lone man, luring said man to its lair, and then trapping it, did become just a touch monotonous. However, this only amounted to perhaps about 5 or 10 minutes of the movie which felt slightly redundant. Those aside, I found Under the Skin to be a confident, challenging movie that is one of the most unique sci-fi films released in the last twenty years. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Directors: Anthony & Joe Russo

Spoiler-Free Summary:

Some time following the events of the alien invasion chronicled in The Avengers, Steve Rogers has adjusted to life in the 21st century. He is working with Nick Fury, Natasha Romanov (a.k.a. The Black Widow) and SHIELD to prevent terrorist actions around the globe, though without complete knowledge of the exact reasons for many of his team's actions.

It is revealed that SHIELD is close to completing a massive "deterrent" weapon system known as Project Insight, a tremendous troika of aircraft carrier airships with devastating firepower. With the official activation of Insight about to get the green light, Fury recognizes a potential security breach, and all hell breaks loose. He is attacked, and Rogers and Romanov have to go on the run, evading the highly informed intelligence agency and extremely deadly troops with whom they had worked for the past several years. Added to this is a mystery combatant known only as "The Winter Soldier," who possesses powers and abilities to match Rogers's own fantastically enhanced attributes, and who seems to be doing everything in his considerable skill set to stop Rogers, Romanov, and anyone who is attempting to uncover the nefarious elements working within and against SHIELD.

Using all of their skills in espionage, tactics, and combat, the Widow and the Captain must go way off the grid and uncover just who is at the bottom of the immense treachery at SHIELD and learn just what their plans for Project Insight are.

My Take on the Movie (still no spoilers)

The movie is great. I've now seen it twice, and it supplants the first Iron Man as my favorite solo Avenger movie.

The filmmakers went with some very savvy decisions that pay off. Instead of having Rogers wallow in the trauma of being thrust into the 21st century, he's already taking things in very nice stride, right from the opening scenes. This allows the story to get going and remain focused.

The larger themes are nothing tremendously novel, having at their bases political and ethical questions about intelligence agencies, personal privacy, and potential abuses of tremendous power. Of course, The Winter Soldier, just as a comic book superhero movie should, amps everything up to the fantastically epic scale that a summer blockbuster needs to be.

This doesn't mean, however, that everything in the film is large-scale. There are several quieter, interpersonal moments that offset and lend effect to the grander actions. Rogers's meeting and friendship with Sam Wilson, some of his conversations with Natasha, and a few moments of silent reflection on his own distant past are very welcome. These calmer moments help magnify the size and scope of the larger fights and action sequences.

This bout with an Algerian terrorist leader is a blast to watch
and would have been the finale of a weaker movie.
In Winter Soldier, it was the first major fight scene.

As for the action, it's tremendous. Whether it's the smaller-scale fisticuffs, a very well-executed car attack/chase scene, or the over-the-top grand finale, these elements are handled extremely well. They nearly all pack the intensity and excitement that you could ask for from one of this type of movie. Carefully choreographed and dynamic one-on-one fights, the monstrous finale in the skies over DC, and everything in between are quite simply a lot of fun to watch. They stand in stark contrast to the Michael Bay approach of just throwing an insane amount of huge objects up on the screen, moving at blinding speed or in slow-motion, smashing into each other, and blowing up. The Winter Soldier is the kind of movie that I bother to go see on the big screen.

As with all of the other Avengers movies, there is plenty of humor sprinkled throughout. Though I can't say that the moments of levity are all five-star comedy material, there are certainly more hits than misses. It may seem to some that Roger's occasional sarcasm is a little misplaced for such a straight-arrow kind of character, but it's never overdone.

All of the elements come together in this one. Anyone who's enjoyed anything about the other Avengers movies should give this one a watch. You should be well pleased.

Looking Over The Avengers Movies

Caveat: This entire post is a full-blown, five-alarm dork-out. If you've no interest in comic book superhero movies, you'll likely want to skip this one. The rest of you...

With the current release of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, I've been re-watching some and rethinking all of the entire Avengers movie catalog. The Winter Soldier is the ninth in the series, with at least several more coming within the next few years, as well as the TV series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. currently in its first season.

Being a formerly serious comic book superhero geek, I still have a great affinity for well-done superhero tales. The wave of film adaptations done in the last 15 years or so has been impressive, with the Sam Raimi Spider-Man series, Bryan Singer X-Men series, and Christopher Nolan Batman series being the exemplars. and the entire "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is an amazingly ambitious project. It's a venture that does have its problems, but has overall produced a solid, in not completely consistent, set of movies that allows for constant evolution.

Here's my own personal ranking of all nine films, from weakest to strongest, with a few brief thoughts on each:

#9: Iron Man 2 (2010)

Easily the weakest in the entire series. Though Downey Jr. carries much of the film with his phenomenal acting and delivery skills and natural fit for the Tony Stark character, there's far too much nonsense. The Ivan Vanko character was slightly intriguing, but too much of a contradictory enigma to really breed much interest. Justin Hammer was made out to be too dumb to run a Waffle House, much less a multi-billion dollar arms company. The grand finale of the movie was massive smash-up of armored suits, which amounted to a dull fireworks show in my eyes. Between all of these things were a lot of half-baked ideas and action set-ups.

In short, it lacked the intelligence and solid writing of its predecessor, making it a movie only worth watching if you're an Avengers completist or a very serious fan of the Iron Man movies.

#8: The Incredible Hulk (2008)

The attempt to reboot this classic Marvel character fell flat,
yet again. It wouldn't be until Joss Whedon got his hands
on him that the Hulk would reach his full awesomeness. 

Ed Norton could have been a perfect Bruce Banner to carry this into a solid film franchise. As it was, the movie was pretty mediocre. Liv Tyler's breathy, doe-eyed etherealism seemed far out of place in this movie. The basic story was decent enough, but it tried to do a little too much by having two classic nemeses in General "Thunderbolt" Ross AND Emil Blonsky, a.k.a The Abomination, neither of whom was given enough time to develop into an interesting adversary. The writing was a bit lazy, too, with a lot of pseudo-science, and my biggest pet-peeve: far too many wink-wink, nudge-nudge "homages" to the classic TV series. One would have been enough, but this movie had at least three, only one of which was mildly clever. The final fight with the Abomination wasn't terribly impressive, either.

This one was a missed opportunity that, in some ways, was outdone by the also-flawed Ang Lee Hulk movie that preceded it by five years.

#7: Iron Man 3 (2013)

Definitely better that Iron Man 2, but not nearly as tight as the first installment. Brings back some of the smarts of the first, though not completely. Some missed opportunities in how they deal with Tony Stark's PTSD after the events of The Avengers. A slightly longer review is here.

#6: Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

The first on my list to be a "good" movie that I would continue to rewatch every year or two. It actually has more genuine heart than any of the other Avengers movies, and it nails exactly what makes the Steve Rogers character primarily a "super man" rather than just being a "superman." It has a good blend of humor and action, balanced fairly well throughout. There are a few odd jumps in pacing, and one thing that I truly missed: his training. It's one thing to be turned into a physical specimen and be given a badass shield. It's another to learn how to fight and command troops. We never got to see just how Steve Rogers learned how to do those things, which could have been tremendous fun to see.

#5 Thor (2011)

The Avengers character with by far the
richest history in actual human myth
has been given solid treatment.

Really fun movie. It did drag in a few places, and I have trouble buying Natalie Portman as a brilliant astro-physicist, but it's overall a good action/adventure movie. Chris Hemsworth was a perfect choice for the Norse god of thunder, as he exudes the physical presence, majesty, and joy of warfare that the mythical character demands. From the initial team attack into the Frost Giants' world, to Loki's exile, to the final battle against the Destroyer, there was plenty to like about the movie. There were a few slower, duller moments, but they didn't overly muck up the movie.







#4: Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Some may find me odd for liking the sequel over the original, but I do. Not by much, but I do. See my full-length review here.

#3: Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

I finished watching this not two days before I write this. Longer review forthcoming. After consultation with a fellow comic geek, my main issue concerning what seemed to be a serious plot hole is mostly smoothed over. With that mostly rectified, I place this one very high on the list, as it has so much of what has made the absolute best Avengers movies so much fun.

#2: Iron Man (2008)

The first "Avengers" movie and still the best single-character film of the entire series. It blended the intelligence of the Nolan Batman trilogy with the fun of Singer's X-Men films, and allowed Robert Downey Jr. to take it all home. While the final battle between Stark and Obadiah Stane isn't all that interesting, everything else leading up to it is a blast.

Watching Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark reinvent himself and construct
 the Iron Man armor and character is still the most entertaining 
of all of the Avengers solo flicks.

#1: The Avengers (2012)

I knew Joss Whedon had a way with comic book/fantasy/science-fiction on film, but I had no idea that I could still have that much fun at the movies, even at a somewhat cynical (then) 36-years old. I could gripe about a thing or two here or there, but I just rewatched this movie (for the fifth time) about a week ago and am not even close to getting tired of it. Slightly longer review here.

Random Avengers-Related Stuff:

Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. television series (2013 - current)

I've seen most of the episodes of this show, of which there are about 15 right now. It's been fairly average, so far, though it seems to be heading in an interesting direction. The core characters are interesting enough and played fairly well, though I feel as if Ming-Na Wen is trying way too hard to act tough all the time, with her permanent scowl long past old for me.

So far, the individual episodes have been teasing a larger and much more intriguing plot at an agonizingly slow pace, but this is the curse of the 22-episode network television series model. My hope is that, during these final 5 or 6 episodes, a solid payoff is coming. As of now, it's no better than the more mediocre Avengers films.

Avengers: Phase 2:

So Guardians of the Galaxy looks like it might be a fun ride. I'm not exactly sure how it's going to tie into the rest of the cinematic universe, but the trailer seems to convey a playful tone that could make for a very entertaining science fiction flick that may hearken back to the days of sillier, more light-hearted space travel adventure movies.

Avengers: The Age of Ultron has my hopes set extremely high. So high, in fact, that I'm bound to be disappointed. I have a lot of faith in Joss Whedon, but I do have a fear that the film might bite off even more than his fertile and agile mind can chew.

Avengers: Phase 3:

The lineup for the next wave of Avengers movies has been put out. After the Age of Ultron, the next series of films in the cinematic universe will include (in no particular order) Ant-Man, Thor 3, Captain America 3, and Doctor Strange. Notably absent are Iron Man and the Hulk, the latter of whom created a ton of interest due to how well he was handled in The Avengers. Thor and Captain America are virtual no-brainers, as the characters are strong enough to carry more stand-alone stories. The choices of Ant-Man and Dr. Strange, though seemingly odd ones, do emphasize just how flexible the Marvel Cinematic Universe can be. As actors grow older or weary of playing a character, others characters can be written in to keep the team concept going for as long as it remains profitable for the movie studios. And, judging from the mountains of cash the movies have made so far, that doesn't seem to be ending any time soon.

One potential problem that the entire concept of the "shared film universe" has is that it may continue to grow more and more difficult to maintain the individual characters' integrity as having their own stories. Case in point: in Iron Man 3, which takes place after The Avengers, one has to wonder why, at some point when all hell is breaking loose and Tony Stark's entire mansion is being blown to bits and he and his lady friend Pepper Potts are in perilous danger, he doesn't just call his bff Bruce Banner (who works in his R & D Department at Stark Industries) to Hulk up and help a brother out. Or how about a phone call to Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D.? Or Captain America? Anyone? As Marvel keeps adding more and more interesting super-powered characters to the roll call, this kind of question is just going to multiply, unless the stories are very carefully plotted in ways that would preclude the interference of the other super-powered characters. And if it's one thing you don't want to do, it's start annoying overly analytic fanboys and girls by mucking up the logic and continuity of their imaginary universes. Bad things follow.

The Avengers series hasn't been a streak of brilliant cinematic gems, but it certainly has been consistent enough and epic enough to keep me very entertained and interested. I'll be right there with them for at least the next few films, and hopefully beyond. It's pure escapism, which we all need from time to time.