Henry V

When: 1989, Bale's fifth film

Age: 15

Genre/Director: Shakespeare, History, Branagh

Kate says the next two films are far more jolly--I promise!

The thing I like about Branagh's Henry V specifically is how beautifully it is filmed, especially when I remember that it was filmed in something less than a month, using a terrifically small cast, on a small budget. The individual scenes are sparse, yet lush both in lighting and costuming. There are a few places where the lack of extras comes apparent (servants, not clergymen, would put Henry's robes on in the throne room scene). But otherwise, the tight focus on expressions and the use of mood lighting (the dark shadows in the throne room) make for a remarkably professional accomplishment.

And I'm a huge fan of Patrick Doyle's music (he also did the music for Thor).

The thing I like best about Branagh's Shakespeare in general is how everyday and real he renders what is, to all intents and purposes, rather arcane language. Part of this is that Branagh speaks Shakespeare like everyday language--there's no deliberate adherence to iambic pentameter or a sense of "this is Shakespeare" (I'm a big fan of Jacobi and love his voice, but he delivers Shakespeare far more in the "this is Shakespeare" tradition).

Also, in his Shakespeare films, Branagh often includes small but consistent behaviors that turn the language into conversation rather than speech: Brian Blessed's eye-rolling, Stephen Simms (Scroop) crying when confronted with his treachery; Ian Holm (the lovable Fluellen) looking bashful as he speaks to the king; Christopher Ravenscroft (Montjoy the Herald) becoming more and more impressed by the young king, Henry. All these small marks add depth and understanding to the film.

It is a rather sad film though with a far more definite purpose, less documentary feel, than Empire. What does a good king do? How does a good king behave? I had a professor who claimed that Branagh's version is pro-war; I don't think it is pro-anything. I think Branagh, and Shakespeare, were trying to work out the effects that war has, good and bad, on a king and his subjects and their families. It's more a psychological study than anything.

Though it does make me wonder what the world would be like today if France was a permanent extension of England. But history being what it is, Henry died within six years of Agincourt of dysentery.

As for Christian Bale--this movie isn't a showcase for his talents like Empire. Mostly, he is in it as much as he is because Branagh had a very small cast. So--every group scene: hey, there's Bale again! However, it is an interesting early reference to Bale's tendency to skip between Hollywood and more arty films.

I do have a kind of amusing anecdote related to Bale's appearance in this movie. I was showing the St. Crispin's Day speech to a group of student and made an off-hand remark about "Batman" making an appearance. Bale is shown several times during the speech. But when I turned off the DVD, the students were confused. They'd expected to see, well, BATMAN.

Now there's an interesting, Monty-Python type image to contemplate.

Mike says Kate's review totally had me thinking about what a superhero/Shakespeare mash-up might be like.... Then I remembered the awesomeness that is Thor. As such, Branagh is one of the only people on the planet who could get me to watch Shakespeare during my video game time.

As a fan of British television, one of the cool little bonuses that came with watching this film was seeing so many actors I have seen in other works. Also cool was realizing that the second Harry Potter film was a reunion of sorts for Branagh and company, as many of his Henry co-stars would later join the Potter franchise.

The quality of the film is impressive, and the performances human, for the most part. Seeing Shakespeare alive and vibrant is always inspirational to we English Majors, despite the depressing nature of many of his tales.

Perhaps my favorite part of the film was the use of the narrator, which was cleverly used by the Bard as a way to overcome the shortcomings of the stage. While film addresses these shortcomings completely, the narrator's use is still appropriate and brilliant.... plus, I'm a sucker for narration.

As far as Christian Bale is concerned, well, he's in it. As Kate says, the film says far more about his career choices than his style or ability. Though, it is safe to say he likes to act in dramas.

While a very worthy adaptation, I do have to say the battle scene was a bit grotesque.... and even for a guy who enjoys the occasional sword fight, six enemies stabbing one guy to death is a bit excessive, though it pales to the piles of dead teenagers.

The end of the play has always intrigued me. It's almost as if Shakespeare felt bad about how depressing and sad the play was (he killed Falstaff, for goodness sake!) and decided to tack a mini romantic-comedy on the end. It works to lighten the mood, but is still an odd shift in tone.

The funny part about all of this, of course, is that despite these flaws, the film is at least a bit more cheery than the last. WWII trumps Shakespeare in depression-inspiring storytelling... who would've thought?

Okay, so I couldn't help myself--besides, I think Shakespeare

would approve!~Kate

Empire of the Sun

When: 1987, Bale's fourth film

Age: 12-13

Genre/Director: True story, Spielberg

Mike says I usually avoid this type of film, and, as my viewing reminded me last night, I probably will for the rest of my life. I can recognize that it’s a powerful and well-made film. But for me, a war movie needs something fictional (aliens, giant robots, elves, Time Lords, etc.) in order to make it tolerable.

Instead, I have to choke down a film where HORRIBLE things happen to a young child, such as being separated from a parent, witnessing multiple deaths, war time violence, starvation, and captivity all without the benefit of any fictional “spoonful of sugar” equivalent to ease the passage of such bitter and depressing events.

While I have a whole rant about this topic in general, I’ll save it and just say that I avoid serious, heart-wrenching dramas for the same reason I avoid the news- -it stresses me out!

As such, I really don’t have many positive things to say about the film. I think the film is beautiful to look at, and found that it didn’t feel dated or old by any standard; in fact, it is only the young faces of known actors that really show how old the movie is.

I  have to credit Christian Bale; even as a young man, he was a phenomenal actor. Every part of his emotional journey, even those parts that don’t have any real moral other than pure suffering, is believable. Bale is instantly believable and unlikable as the spoiled brat, and through his journey, we see him grow… though I can’t say if he ever becomes likable. I don’t sympathize or empathize with the character… rather, I pity him. Lost in a world beyond his comprehension, he has no choice but to slowly lose his grip on his values, his sanity, and nearly reality itself.

For a 12-year-old actor to so convincingly portray a descent into madness (that wasn't caused by hormones) is really quite impressive.

So impressive and believable was his performance that it merely enhanced the pure agony I experienced while enduring the film. I have no doubt that the film is historically accurate (and looks as much), and I have no trouble imagining several children went through a very similar journey.  And I have to admit that the film is excellently made, directed, and acted.

 But here’s the thing . . . Real life can be so damned depressing, it’s really not much fun to dwell on the horrible things that happen to people . . . especially not as a form of entertainment.

Even worse is the brutal reality that Spielberg hammers in with each horrible incident--not only are these thing awful, but they are meaningless, random happenings without cause or explanation. Sure, these are consequences of war, but there’s still no one for Jim to hold responsible. The film is the story of his coming to grips with just how unforgiving life can be. His going mad seems to be the only rational action he can take in a world so empty of hope.

The end of the film was the director's last chance to redeem himself in my eyes; the last chance to explain to me, justify, what I had endured with the character. What lesson had I learned? What truth would I be rewarded with? Instead, we’re given only the scene of parents discovering the remains of their child--a scarred and traumatized child that may never lead a normal life. I understand that this is a very jaded and cynical view of the end of the film, but two things should be taken into consideration.

First, I work in children’s mental health, and I’ve seen that traumatic events aren’t so easily overcome as Hollywood would like us to think. And second, it’s a cynical and jaded film that takes no opportunity to show the good side of the world. Jim sees only misery, even to the point that the two things that seem to bring him hope--God and Airplanes--both lose their magic with the news of the dropping of the atomic bomb.

The good news is that after a film like this, Shakespeare is going to feel downright CHEERFUL.

Kate says the remarkable aspect of this film is the lack of heavy-messaging (which often shows up in Spielberg's later films). The story is so entirely from Jim's point of view that the film remains almost one of observation rather than commentary.

The observation does bring to light several fascinating ideas, such as the ability of human beings to adapt and the tendency for context to lose historical or cultural relevancy--Jim adapts to camp life with little trouble and even enjoys it. Even after the March to Nantao, he doesn't begin to place his experience into some kind of narrative until he hears the radio broadcast about the bombing of Japan: oh, this is what is happening to me.

It reminds me of the scene from Hope and Glory where the school children cheer when their school is bombed. Context is exactly what it means to them at that moment.

If there is a theme, it is rendered through Jim's relationship with Bassie. Jim undergoes a Maslow's hierarchy type of development whereby his natural, and useful, desire for survival is eradicated, rather than intensified, by the war--first, by his desire for affection; next, by his self-actualization or acknowledgment of his own situation: he is a child who has come through an impossible situation. He ends by turning his back on Bassie; although the film doesn't pass judgment on Bassie, Jim perceives that Bassie's Lord of the Flies philosophy is not enough to explain what he has gone through.

Consequently, to me, the final scene is a huge relief--like coming through the bottle-neck. Jim is finally able to relinquish the burden of his own survival; he'll never be the innocent, normal schoolboy again (the briefly flashed-on self-image that he tries to save at the end), but he'll be able to surrender his responsibilities for a time and simply belong. He is moving up the hierarchy.

It is in many ways a heart-rending film and brought me to tears several times--not the sort of film I watch over and over and over again to relax! However, I have to argue with Mike (slightly) regarding the lack of positive scenes: I think there are many but, again, I think Spielberg steps back from any kind of judgment about what is occurring. He simply lets us see how the British established their camp--the willingness of Dr. Rawlins to defend his hospital and follow the sick on their journey; the weary amusement of Jim's foster mother towards his hyperactiveness; the odd kindness of the Japanese soldiers towards the retarded young man who would never become a pilot in other circumstances (although that kindness is tempered by the question of motive); Jim's kindness towards the same young man; the fellowship of the non-Kamikaze Japanese pilots with Jim (Saint-Exupery suggests in his books that flying is a higher calling than anything else, putting astronauts and pilots in a different realm from ordinary mortals). And before the camp scenes, I was impressed by Jim's father's lack of prejudice; at first, he seems like an self-satisfied Britisher who is thoughtless and tunnel-visioned, but in just a few minutes, he is shown as more insightful, tolerant, and compassionate than he initially appears.

This is the quintessential show-don't-tell movie.

As for Christian Bale: it is fairly appropriate that this is the first film of his portfolio we are reviewing. Bale is a relatively unusual actor since he started so young yet has continued to be successful. Often, child stars have trouble leaping the gap between the "cute" years and films that require more than kootchie-kootchie-koo reactions. Look at Shirley Temple. And what will Daniel Radcliffe be doing in twenty years?

Bale does a rather remarkable job although I think he is strongest at the beginning and end of the film. The middle of the film seems to falter into "cuteness" territory; Bale owns the character less. However, in comparison to other child actors, Bale's portrayal of Jim Graham is a true tour de force.

And I always appreciate an appearance by Nigel Havers!

Actor's Portfolio: Christian Bale

List 10 will be an overview of films starring Christian Bale.

Mike and Kate picked Mr. Bale because (1) he has starred in a truly eclectic group of films, including Disney's Pocahontas--no, sorry, it didn't make it on the list; (2) this will deposit us directly on the release date of Dark Knight Rises. After all, we had so much fun reviewing Avenger's "live," why not do another superhero's movie (though of a very different type)!?

Here's the list:

10. Empire of the Sun
9. Henry V
8. Treasure Island
7. Newsies
6. Little Women
5. Equilibrium
4. Howl's Moving Castle
3. The Prestige
2. Dark Knight (Mike and Kate reviewed Batman Begins for List 9)
1. Dark Knight Rises, July 20, 2012

The reviews will start next weekend, May 18th-19th.

Marvel's The Avengers Reviewed

Kate says I wasn't disappointed!

That may be a terrible way to start a review, but in this case--considering all the hype (and the fact that this is the first movie in over 10 years I've seen on an opening weekend, let alone the opening day!)--it is entirely appropriate.

In fact, I got caught up in the film. Every now and again, I remembered, Hey, I'm going to review this later, but mostly, I was just interested in what would happen next. That to me is the mark of a good film, if not necessarily a great one.

Is this a great film? I honestly don't know yet, but it is worth the price of admission. AND it is a film you want to see on the big screen. Whedon is really more of a TV guy--despite his forays into films--so I was a little cautious going in regarding how the film would look visually. However, he absolutely delivers that big-screen imagery and feel. Despite the film's quieter moments, it definitely screams "theater experience."

The introduction of the characters is impressively seamless. The characters are introduced from within the storyline. This is a surprisingly difficult and surprisingly efficient way to make a story work: the characters discover things at the same time as the audience. By approaching the characters in this way, Joss Whedon and Zak Penn managed to keep from overloading the script with information (I suspect that extra information for Marvel fans may show up visually throughout the movie).

As a result, the story is neat, almost simple in its design. There are three main sections: introduction of villain and heroes, adventures on board the ship, adventures in New York City.

I was impressed at how quickly the villain/problem was introduced. Tom Hiddleston, by the way, makes a GREAT villain. Actually, he pretty much saves the film. If the villains had been the somewhat cheesy aliens, the movie would be fun but a long-term flop. Hiddleston--and the heroes' reactions to Hiddleston--"keep it real." Hiddleston as Loki makes the team matter; since Loki is the antithesis of a "guy who works well with others," thematically, the Avengers had to come together to beat him.

As he did in Thor (but less), Hiddleston manages to convey a faint ambiguity to Loki's actions, particularly in his scene with the Black Widow. It is less apparent in his scenes with Thor, which brings us to one of the minor . . . "flaws" hardly seems a fair term, considering what the film had to do in the time available . . . "lacks" of the movie: Thor's and Captain America's psychologies are much less lightly delved into while Black Widow's, Hawkeye's, and the Hulk's psychologies are delved into far more. This is not automatically a flaw since the psychologies of Black Widow and Hawkeye give the movie a human core that speaks instantly to the audience's empathy (I get to the Hulk further down). However, for those of us who admire the movies Thor and Captain America, more psychological exploration of those characters would have been nice, if not practically possible.

Tony Stark just goes on being Tony Stark.

As for the Hulk, I adore Mark Ruffalo, and I doubly adore him as the Hulk. I was not invested in Edward Norton's Hulk at all. I was totally invested in Ruffalo's Hulk. I cared about the character to the point where, hey, I'd see another Hulk movie (with Ruffalo)! I appreciated his humor, his deadpan comments, and his scientific knowledge.

Which brings us to: What kind of movie is this? Me, I think it is Apollo 13 meets a war-buddies movie. I especially felt that way when Stark, Banner, and Rogers talk in the lab. The whole men-talking-about-gadgets-while-sort-of-addressing-emotions thing really works. I believed in the basic ability of these men to get along at the same time I believed in the ego, pride, misunderstanding, or wariness that might keep them apart.

It would have been nice to see more of Thor in those scenes. But again, this project is so huge, the straightforward, non-convoluted storytelling of the movie is quite impressive. This is an Impressionist painting, not a Pre-Raphaelite one. It is brush-strokes, not tell-the-audience-everything. The fact that it works at all without coming across as shallow or too simplistic is a rather enormous feat.

I give it 9.1 out of 10 (today; this may fluctuate).

I did totally love the whole experience. The problem is, now I'm anxious for the movie to come out on DVD, so I can watch the commentary and the movie with subtitles on!

Mike says Wow. Seriously . . . Wow. I have been looking forward to this movie very since I first heard the rumblings on the Internet some five years ago, and despite some small imperfections, The Avengers was every bit the movie I was hoping for.

As I have previously mentioned, Joss Whedon is a personal hero (and sometime personal deity), and today, he has yet again proven himself worthy of that. When I first heard Whedon's name in connection with the project, I rolled my eyes, remembered the failed Wonder Woman movie, and moved on to thinking Avengers would never happen. Not because I didn't want it to or because I thought Whedon was unworthy of the task. Rather, he was so perfect for it, fate would never allow it to come to pass.

But, as has been proven before, you can't stop the Signal (for the uninformed, that was a Serenity reference).

The trouble with the Signal, though, is that it was so powerful this time around, I got a little TOO excited. So excited, in fact, that for the first fifteen minutes of the movie I sat there waiting to be amazed. By the time the title card showed, my brain seemed to kick in and say, "No no no, the amazing stuff is AFTER all the required stuff." To which I replied "Good thinking, brain! Let's sit back and watch us a movie!"

Because of my over-excitement, the first section of the movie seemed to drag; even the dialog during this section, while very Whedon, seemed forced and overly serious.

Introducing Loki right away was a good call--I was excited, as the film is practically a Thor sequel! The opening scene is good, though awkward. Once the search for the heroes began, however, the movie seemed to find its voice and just got stronger as the movie progressed.

As always, Whedon's dialog is really where the meat of the film lies. I loved how the characters worked out the exposition, so the dialog never felt heavy-handed. Although some people mind not knowing exactly how Thor got to earth, Loki's line about Thor getting there due to the Allfather was enough for me. That one-line piece of dialog handled the problem simply and elegantly.

All of the exposition in the film is handled much the same way--simply and in a normal, non-commercial voice (Well, Dad, I got it at K-Mart, the home of great prices!).

The film could have easily gotten lost dealing with extra things, such as how exactly Thor returned, but instead relies on simple explanations and the audience to fill in the gaps. What has Tony been up to since Iron Man 2? Well, building a tower and kissing Pepper, what else? Simple and easy.

One possible snag the movie faced, which I foresaw in Iron Man, was making Jarvis entirely electronic. Jarvis in the comics is the butler of Avengers Mansion. In the comics, Captain America really connects with him, since they're from the same generation. But in the movies, he's no longer there to introduce Cap to the modern world. Instead, the film uses Coulson which is admittedly brilliant. Making Coulson a fan, plus his status as official Marvel Cinematic Universe Greeter (think the old guys at Walmart), makes him the perfect person for Cap to make a connection with.

In fact, most of the characters are used just as well; although the movie is loyal to their origins, it also plays off their strengths in unique ways. For example, Hawkeye is never used in quite the same way in the comics as he is in the movie, as a character who observes things from above. The way he is used in Avengers is very cool since it fits with his basic personality, yet makes him far more useful!

Nick Fury's female assistant is the most underused character, but it is difficult to see how she could have been used more. Bringing in Captain America's modern love interest--Sharon Carter (the niece of the first film's Peggy)--as Fury's assistant would have just complicated the movie, forcing out the important team-building stuff.

I was impressed with how much the writers were able to squeeze into the movie without it feeling bloated; the movie is so packed, there wasn't even room for cameos of other heroes. There are some storyline references, such as the Black Widow's background, along with some great comic references, which make the comic fans such as myself crazy happy.

I gotta mention: finally, a take on the Hulk that freakin' works! The last few movies tried to capture the lonely-man-on-the-run aspect of the TV show. But the films really needed to move away from that. This is a new Hulk, a new generation, and even though the TV series was great, the film version really needed to find its own unique voice. Avengers focuses more on Hulk dealing with the inner beast while the previous movies were overly somber, and moody. The Hulk in Avengers is FUN! As my friend that I saw the film with said, the Hulk shaking Loki is like a "puppy with a chew toy." That's the way he should be! You won't see this Hulk dealing with emotional turmoil . . . that's BANNER'S job: this Hulk, he gets to throw the tantrum.

As I've said before, every guy should "get" the Hulk, at least on a very simple level. Every single little boy on the planet has pretended to be the Hulk at least once. But it wasn't to deal with deep emotional scars like Ang Lee and Ed Norton might suggest; rather, every kid just wants to BREAK STUFF! The Hulk is just a toddler on a mean streak: "You made me mad, now you pay!"

This is paid off extremely well in the final confrontation between the Hulk and Loki. Everyone else tries to reason with Loki, to the point that Loki is ready for a battle of words. But it doesn't work on the Hulk! The Hulk has no inhibitions or social skills: "Shiny Man talk too much; I Smash him!"

The ending action sequence is amazing, especially once the group gets together. The smooth combination of Whedon's dialog and paced-out action really makes the film work. The fights are very clever and earned. The relationships are well-built. While the film does okay with the singular heroes, it soars when the ensemble is together--Whedon always does better when "the group" is assembled.

Once I got past my expectations, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. And I love that it left things open for a sequel without undermining what it did here and now! The film really succeeded in delivering exactly what it promised--a fun romp with characters we already know and love thrown together. Throw in a great soundtrack, great performances, and a solid script, and Avengers truly becomes something special.

*Spoilers:*

Mike and Kate agree that Coulson's death works. Whedon has a tendency to kill off characters in pointless ways to teach some kind of philosophical lesson. This case, thankfully, is an exception! Kate, who usually loathes TV/film deaths (99% of the time, they are cop-outs), didn't mind this one because (1) Coulson's death isn't futile; he goes down the way he would want to go; (2) it is an unprecedented and noble pay-off for a character that really just started as a minor G-man.

Mike points out that making Coulson the guy-to-die indicates how good a manipulator Whedon is as a writer. For the effect of Coulson's death on the superheroes to be believable, new viewers have to like him as well as the die-hard fans. The use of Pepper Potts here is inspired. She loves Agent Coulson; we love Agent Coulson!

Also, the crafty way Fury uses Coulson's "death" adds a very cool layer to the relationship of the superheroes with their handler (Fury) who himself is operating in opposition to other outside forces.

Not to forget Coulson's complete passing out isn't on-screen, leaving open the possibility that he isn't dead. He had to be dead for this movie (Tony's personal grief when learning of Coulson's death had to be real), but he can show up in another movie without playing havoc with continuity.

Marvel One Shots, Featuring Agent Coulson

It's almost here!  Avengers is just a day away!

To celebrate, we've decided to give you just one more review, of the two Marvel One Shot short films, The Consultant, and A Funny Thing Happened on the way to Thor's Hammer.

Hero/Universe: Agent Coulson, The Marvel Cinematic Universe

Is it Based on the Comic?  Nope.  But a new Nick Fury (resembling Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson have both recently made their debut in comics.

Haven't they already made this? These appeared online and as extras on the Thor and Cap Blu-rays, and one does use some footage from The Incredible Hulk.

What does it have to do with Avengers?  Well, The Consultant clears up a couple questions caused by the Stark cameo in Hulk, and A Funny Thing is just Agent Coulson being awesome.  But, these fill in some small holes in the marvel cinematic universe.

Mike says these are so Fun!  They're both about three minutes, and both showcase a fun side of Coulson's personality.  The  Consultant seems to focus on his wit, humor, and willingness to work the system for what he thinks is best. A Funny Thing really highlights just how much of a bad-ass Coulson can be (despite his fondness for donuts).

I like The Consultant, because it fixes something Marvel could have easily ignored: the now irrelevant Stark cameo at the end of Hulk, which was made before anyone had any idea of what the heck Avengers could be or would be about.  While most of the film is clips from Hulk, it's surprising how much Coulson's character come through.

A Funny Thing is just plain fun, and that's really all it is.  Filling in the small gap between Iron Man 2 and Thor, the film features Coulson breaking up a gas station robbery.  And it's AWESOME.  And funny!

While these two short films don't add much tot the franchise as a whole, it's fun to see this unexpected fan favorite character break out on his own, if only for a few minutes.

Kate says these are great clips, mostly for how casually hilarious they are and how much information they deliver in three minutes. Of course Coulson would love big band! That is so right. and his casual, almost apologetic behavior with the cashier is also very right.  

I agree with Mike that The Consultant puts Stark in context. It also brings up a nice extra layer to the superhero universe--the ongoing, internal rivalry between agencies. I found the entire discussion of Abomination ("He doesn't like that name") so fascinating, I started thinking, "Wow, they could have made Hulk about this!"

But mostly the shorts are a chance to see Coulson in action. I'm betting Gregg never saw the character's fandom coming. It is hard to decipher the je ne sais pas that makes the character so appealing, but I think the shorts help to decipher it: extra, extra dryness plus extreme efficiency, intelligence, and a cool head, not forgetting relentless courtesy, all of it masking competent kick-your-buttness.

He's Giles!

Captain America and Thor

Superhero & universe: Captain America and Thor, Marvel Universe

Is it based on a comic? Captain America first appeared in Captain America #1, published by Timely Comics (the precursor to Marvel)  in 1941.  By the end of WWII, the character had dropped in popularity, and was out of print for most of the fifties, aside from a couple of ill-received come-backs.  Cap returned to modern comics in 1963, when the Captain was found frozen in the Avengers issue #4 of their self-titled series.  He has been featured in print continuously since, enjoying over 600 issues of publication.

Thor first appeared in Journey into Mystery #83, and has been featured in print almost continuously ever since, until the character was killed in 2004 and the property was given time to rest before being relaunched.  In 2007, Thor was resurrected by J. Michael Starczynski in a series that received wide critical acclaim, and the character has enjoyed renewed popularity ever since, recently celebrating over 625 issues of publication. 

Haven't they already made that?   Captain America has been featured in numerous animated series since the 1960's, while also appearing in nearly every animated incarnation of the Avengers.  Cap also appeared in a 1944 film serial, two made-for-TV movies in 1979,  an odd 1973 Turkish film 3 Dev Adam (Cap and a Mexican Wrestler fight a green clad Spiderman), and an unreleased 1992 theatrical film (later released on video), and two direct-to-DVD Avengers movies.  Cap currently appears on Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, and Super Hero Squad Show.  Following the success of last year's theatrical film, Cap will appear in Captain America 2 (official title unknown) in 2014.

The Marvel version of Thor appeared in a short lived, self-titled animated series in the 1960's, as well as in various animated projects afterword.  Thor met the Hulk in the 80's made-for-TV film The Incredible Hulk Returns, and reunited with him in the 2009 Hulk Vs direct-to-DVD movie. Thor has appeared in five other animated direct-to-DVD movies.  Thor has also appeared in several animated series featuring the Avengers, and currently appears in Avengers: Earth's mightiest Heroes, and Super Hero Squad Show.  Following the success of last year's theatrical film, Thor will return to theaters in a sequel in 2013.  Thor's Norse mythology counterpart also continues to appear in a variety of sci-fi/fantasy films and television series.

What the heck does this have to do with Avengers?  Avengers will require a degree of finesse similar to that exhibited in these films: juggling multiple character development, managing a deeply conflicted villain whilst making non-angsty goodness interesting and attractive. Despite some trepidations regarding Whedon, such demands play to many of his strengths. In terms of plot development, these movies--more than any of the others--set the stage for the culminating project: Avengers, in theaters May 4th.

Mike says  for me, the most vital piece of the Avengers puzzle was Thor.  Sure, Iron Man worked out well, and Hulk was okay.  Captain America was still waiting to be released to average hype.  A mediocre Cap movie would have hurt the franchise, but a lousy Thor film would have been fatal.  Of the many legs that the Avengers franchise stands on, Thor is one of the most vital, linking the films while also providing the key antagonist and context of the Avengers.

With this in mind, it's amazing that Marvel opted to go with Thor at all.  There are literally hundreds of Avengers to choose from, but none of them would have achieved the diversity that Thor brings, nor do any of them play as crucial a role as Thor did in the original formation of the Avengers.

Thor also had the monumental task of linking the technological worlds of Hulk and Iron Man with its own mystical aspects, which is tough in any medium.  That Thor accomplished this in an original and entertaining manner is surprising enough, but that it did it while staying true to the spirit of the source material is quite amazing.

When I first heard that Branagh was in the running to direct, I kind of shook my head and thought, "Okay, that's weird."  As it turned out, weird was exactly what the film needed.  Branagh brought a sense of scope and sophistication to the film that might not have existed other wise.

The Asgardians are portrayed very much as real people with real personalities, but who still exhibit an air of royalty that lends itself to godhood.  This is probably my favorite thing about the film.  Even before Thor learns his lesson, he is established as a likable guy with friends that genuinely enjoy his company, with plenty of evidence to support that depiction.

The inclusion of characters already established in other films was also quite successful, helping to create that believable link between the films.  Seeing the film for the first time in the theater, I was overwhelmed, brought to tears of pure joy on at least two occasions. At least one of them was when Thor first threw his hammer!

The movie is tight and solid, with a nice balance of drama and humor, and just the right bit of action.  When the film was first announced, I was terrified by the potential level of campy humor.  Throwing medieval types into the modern world for the duration of a film almost never ends with dignity.  Thor somehow pulls it off with only a small scene (the Warriors Three knocking on the window) containing any camp at all.

Thor also excelled at creating a relationship between the hero and villain that has real weight and depth, something that the other Marvel films to this point had not succeeded in.  When Thor confronts Loki at the end of the film, he is fairly sure he can reason him out of his behavior.  When the confrontation becomes a brawl, Thor seems honestly hurt by the prospect of having to fight his brother.

Even when Thor decides to take the ultimate action to save the Giants by destroying the bridge, Loki's shock reveals he still cares for Thor. "But you'll never see her again!" he screams.  Sure, this is an obvious attempt to manipulate Thor, but there's also something about it that makes me realize--Loki doesn't understand. His brother is sacrificing his own happiness to save their enemies; Loki is shocked by his brother's growth and by what he is sacrificing.

Even Loki's attempt to destroy the world of the Frost Giants seems motivated more by the love for his family than just a need for power. Loki feels that if he can destroy his own people, then there is nothing to stop him from being a true Asgardian;  Then he will truly belong.  Thor's intervention, at the risk of his own happiness, is just another example of Thor denying Loki what he thinks he deserves.

As you can see, I was bowled over by Thor.  So much that when I first saw Captain America, I left the theater feeling a tad underwhelmed.  It's not that I thought Cap was a bad movie. In fact I was fairly happy with it.  But it wasn't Thor.  Which is pretty unfair to Cap.

After some time had passed, I watched the film again on DVD, and I was blown away.  It took me a bit, but Cap really grew on me, both the character and the film.  I really appreciated the pacing and character development. In fact, some of my favorite characters in the movie were the smaller parts, including Dr. Erskine and the general played by Tommy Lee Jones ("He's still skinny").

I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Erskine.  His role as the wise mentor trying to make the world a better place is overwhelming and completely believable, making his death that much more moving. Evans as Cap is surprisingly dead on, and his portrayal as an independent thinker as well as a patriot is nice to see in this day and age.

The production design is amazing, and really makes the movie work as an extension of the Iron Man reality, while still feeling at home in the time period.  There's also a ton here for fans paying attention.  Nods, references, and foreshadowing are all treats contained in the background.

Like Thor, Cap really succeeds in its relationships.  Each one is believable and enjoyable, and Cap's relationship with the Red Skull is no different.  Cap's ability to control his dislike of the villain is specially refreshing.

Perhaps the best example of the relationship between the two is the exchange that takes place after Cap allows himself to be captured. The Red Skull, believing himself to be a godlike being, demands Cap, his most persist and challenging enemy, to explain what makes him so special that he believes he can stand toe to toe with the Red Skull. 

When Cap says, "Nothing, I'm just a kid from Brooklyn," he not only admits his own humanity but bares that of the Red Skull as well--as perfect as the Skull thinks he is, an ordinary man can bring him down.  And that is why the Skull hits Cap. Not to establish the power in the relationship, but in an attempt to reclaim it.

The end of the movie is a bit abrupt but was definitely the right way to go. By the time Cap was made, Avengers was an almost definite thing (as I said, failure of that summer's movies could have killed it, but that didn't happen). As such, the filmmakers decided to save Cap's journey of adapting to the modern world for Avengers, which puts Cap in the great position to have the main arc in the film--if he can find a family, then he will have found a place and a purpose in this world that moved on without him.  Attempting to fit all of that into one movie would have robbed the film of many of the things that made it special.

More than anything else, I've been really impressed by the methodical way (for Hollywood at least) that Marvel went about setting the stage so that Avengers could happen.  While the Iron Man and Hulk movies set up the world of Marvel, Shield, and many of the rules, Cap and Thor actually introduce plot elements and characters that will play a crucial role in the film.  Loki, the main villain of Thor, and the tesseract from Captain America both feature in Avengers.

The events in both films lead directly into Avengers, setting up the premise the film will be following.  The films can be watched together or separately, and each way brings a different layer to the experience.  If you were able to watch just two films before seeing Avengers, Thor and Cap are what you would want to see.

Here's hoping that Avengers can deliver on five years of build-up. 

I'm so exited!  We're so close!

Kate says this is the second time I've seen Captain America; the third time I've seen Thor. I enjoyed Captain America much more this time around and was reconfirmed in my high opinion of Thor.

The first time I saw Captain, I expected the movie to explore Cap adjusting to the 21st century. I couldn't get over my disappointment when that didn't happen.

The second time, I was prepared to watch the story of Captain America as a straight-forward origin tale. With that point of view in mind, I found the movie not only more enjoyable but rather touching. Just as Superman Returns is a quiet, almost reflective tribute to Superman and the Christopher Reeves era, Captain America pays sincere tribute to Cap and the history/time period that produced him. In fact, the first part of the movie could be a history lesson of the U.S. home-front during World War II!

Okay, granted the second part of the movie is far less historical (Schmidt is worse than the Nazis!). Hugo Weaving is an excellent villain, though, and far scarier in his own face than as Red Skull. In fact, truthfully, I have a hard time taking Red Skull seriously. I am very grateful that the writer/director left off turning Schmidt into Red Skull until late in the movie. When the Red Skull makes his pronouncements, I kind of sigh (despite the great dialog). When Hugo Weaving curls his lips, oooh, goosebumps.

I have been enormously impressed with Chris Evans. Since my prior exposure to Chris Evans was as the glib Johnny Storm, I wasn't expecting much with Cap. Evans delivers a profoundly gentle performance as a guileless man who is truly patriotic and self-sacrificing without being sickly sweet.

Captain America is a good movie to pair with Thor since both Cap and Thor are similar personality types: wholly decent men who perceive their extraordinary strength as an obligation rather than an excuse for dominance. In both movies, the actors manage to give their characters layered depths. Not an easy thing to do! In general, it is far easier to be the snake than the saint.

It helps if Tom Hiddleston is your snake, of course. And it doubly helps if his character is ambiguous, yet psychologically consistent. As Loki, Hiddleston manages to convey a deeply conflicted personality who is, nonetheless, motivated by a single burning desire. As I stated in my prior review of Thor, I suspected Loki's intentions from the start, which I think is an unfortunate--but perhaps inevitable--minor flaw in the movie. On the other hand, Loki does not come across as BIG EVIL BAD GUY who sets out to create the movie's tragic end. Rather, he comes across as someone whose choices keep leading him down paths with fewer and fewer options. He paints himself into his corner/predicament.

Watching this movie for the third time, I was impressed not only by the very human emotions of the two main arcs (Loki on Asgard; Thor on earth) but how well they are balanced alongside the third minor arc: Thor and Jane et al.

The first time I watched the movie, I jumped to the conclusion (if you are noticing a theme, I absolutely agree: it is never a good idea to jump to a conclusion when reviewing movies) that Jane-Thor would be the principle arc--similar to the Peter-Mary Jane storyline which pushes Spiderman forward. But Thor is not a romance; it's a family saga. From that perspective, it is rather impressive that Branagh was able to ground (ha ha) the romance as much as he did. This isn't Highlander where the sex/romance feels tacked on. The romance in Thor is set-up and paid-off with little credulity strain alongside the bigger arcs.

I have to mention how much I appreciate the use of Agent Coulson in Thor. I love the imagery when Thor attempts to take Mjolnir (or "Myeuh-muh") the first time: Coulson's deliberate command to hold off firing; his quiet and curious contemplation of Thor's attempt to lift the hammer; his self-contained, reflective stance as he waits in the rain. I love it! And I should mention that I was a fan of Coulson back with Iron Man, before I even knew he would show up later or saw the one-shots! What can I say: I guess I like dry, bland efficiency.

U.S. movie goers get to see him again plus Cap and Thor very soon.

ONE MORE WEEK UNTIL AVENGERS!

Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk

Superhero & universe: Iron Man and Hulk, Marvel Universe

Is it based on a comic? Iron Man first appeared in Tales of Suspense #39 by Marvel Comics in 1963. Iron Man soon received his own series, and has been in print continuously since, celebrating the 500th issue in January of 2011. Iron Man currently appears in his own monthly book The Invincible Iron Man, Avengers, and the recently begun Avengers Assemble.

The Hulk first appeared in The Incredible Hulk #1 in 1962, and has also been in print almost continuously since his premiere. In 2009, The Hulk celebrated his 600th issue of publication, and currently stars in his own series, supports a successful spin-off, Hulk (which features the Red Hulk), and is also appearing in Avengers Assemble. The Red Hulk appears monthly in Avengers (comic) as well.


Haven't they already made that? The Hulk has been featured heavily in the media in the past forty years, having starred in a popular television series and several made for TV movies, at least five animated series (2 of those as a member of the Avengers or an equivalent), two recent theatrical films, and several direct to DVD animated features. Hulk currently stars in Super Hero Squad, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, and the upcoming Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H. Hulk is also playing a major role in the highly anticipated film Avengers in 2 weeks!

Iron Man has been the main character in several self-titled animated series, as well as most of the different Avengers cartoon series. The character has also appeared in three direct to DVD animated films, and two hugely successful theatrical films. Iron Man currently appears on TV in Super Hero Squad, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, and will be appearing in theaters alongside Hulk in Avengers (again, in just 2 weeks!).

What the heck does this have to do with Avengers? Everything!  With these two movies, we're coming to the real ground work and build up to Avengers.  Iron Man and Hulk, released the same summer, made up the first volley of Marvel's aggressive and dangerous bid to join the superhero movie trend more directly, and have more control over its properties.  In a nutshell, Marvel's gamble paid off HUGE.

With the success of Iron Man, Marvel discovered the recipe for fun blockbusters that please comic fans and newcomers alike.  A small bonus scene at the end of the credits for Iron Man, featuring Nick Fury talking about "The Avengers Initiative," ended up setting the course the company would take for the next several years.

The Incredible Hulk took the success one step farther;  While the movie met with average success and reviews, its contribution to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (it's even got a wiki page!) was invaluable.  The movie contained the first hints of Captain America and the impact he had on the world.  It name-dropped several agencies and characters that would continue to shape the upcoming films.  And that vial that the General uses to make Bronsky stronger?  Yes, it's the same design as the vial used for the serum in Captain America.  Add in a cameo of the recent fan favorite Iron Man and a fascinatingly vague reference to forming a "team," and the Countdown to Avengers had begun.

Kate says I had a tough time committing to see The Incredible Hulk again, even though it was vitally important to this project. I find Edward Norton creepy, and I am unbelievably thankful that he has been replaced by the ultra-huggable Ruffalo in Avengers.

I realize it is possible to watch a movie without being totally committed to the hero, but in the world of superhero movies, this is rather difficult. It really isn't good for a movie when the viewer is more upset about the soda factory being demolished--destroying people's sole source of income--than the hero's fate.

Other than Norton, I quite like the movie's cast. I've always admired William Hurt; Liv Tyler is a sweetie, and I quite like Tim Roth even if I dislike the premise of Lie to Me. In fact, setting aside my Edward Norton antipathy, the film really works on several levels almost entirely due to the excellence of Tim Roth's incipient bad-guyness; once he becomes Abomination, he's far less interesting but as the combative, ambitious Bronksy he is fantastic.

The ending, unfortunately, still doesn't work for me. Banner spends 3/4 of the movie wanting to be cured; then, suddenly, at the end, he decides the Hulk can be used as a positive weapon. Huh? Where did that choice come from?

And the battle scene is just boring. There's no cleverness involved. Just force. And more force. While I like to watch high rise buildings blow up, I don't really care about really, really big creatures duking it out (watching every single gun and rocket launcher in existence fail to take out the Hulk is far more entertaining).

Ironman, on the other hand, is--from a writing standpoint--a far tighter film. And one of my all-time favorites. I don't find Robert Downey Jr. creepy at all despite the intrinsically unsettled nature of his character. Granted, watching any movie with Robert Downey, Jr. is, well, watching a movie with Robert Downey, Jr. but since I happen to find the actor incessantly amusing, it works for me.

The movie is lighter on character-development than many other superhero movies, but what is there is quite subtle and powerful. We aren't hit over the head with Tony Stark's inner development, mostly because he develops entirely within his own capacities and worldview; he doesn't suddenly become some Greenpeace Peacenik. I think this is far more provocative than Tony Stark turning into a completely different individual. In addition, Shaun Toub as Yensin provides an understated but powerful mentor-figure. Gwyneth Paltrow isn't a bad Girl Friday. I adore Terrence Howard for himself. And I triply adore Agent Coulson.

The villain is a bit weak but also a tad irrelevant. This does keep Ironman from being the best action movie ever made. Still, in terms of purely fun action, it ranks fairly high on my list.

Interestingly enough, after watching Iron Man 2, I've formed the conclusion that Tony Stark, however dysfunctional a human being (which is part of his charm), has the most "home life" of all the superheroes we've encountered on the list (with the exception of the last two movies). He is surrounded with family in the form of Pepper, Rhodey, Happy, Jarvis, and Dummy. He has a friendly relationship with Agent Coulson. He has his dead father looking out for him. This list of ongoing relationships is somewhat unusual for superheroes who are often separated from others by actual distance, the job, or the double identity. I think this may be one reason I like Iron Man/Tony Stark so much--the man is the machine and the machine is the man: what one sees is what one gets.

Mike says I was infuriated when I finished watching Iron Man the first time in the theater.  It was a good movie; in fact, it proved that Marvel characters could be brought to the screen in an entertaining and believable way. But when Tony Stark steps up and declares his identity, it brought back all the frustration and and disappointment that made me abandon buying Marvel comics altogether earlier that year.  The Tony Stark of the film captures all of the arrogance and pride of contemporary comics, and most of my reasons for writing them off.

After awhile, the stronger parts of the film grew on me, and I realized that I was okay with the ending.  The production, acting, and writing is all strong.  Downey was perfectly cast as Stark, and Favreau was the perfect director to bring this to screen.

The movie really takes its time to explain and explore the character, and shows nearly every step of his transformation into a hero.  While I agree with Kate, that the villain was weak and poorly developed, at the same time he wasn't all that important.  What was important was seeing Tony embrace the mantle of the Hero and put himself firmly on the path.  Stain really does provide this path, as well as providing a good action climax for the film.

If the Iron Man movies have any real flaw, it's that the villains' potential for truly emotionally wrenching conflict with the hero is never fully explored.  While the back story and depth of story was there, the time was never taken.  Stain's betrayal in the first film should have been devastating to Tony; this man had raised him after his father's death and had guided his life for several years.  Instead, Tony never really confronts him until it's really too late, and when he does, he handles it in with the same cavalier attitude he sports through most of the film.

Despite this, the first film is especially strong, and was a worthy start to what has become a groundbreaking theatrical undertaking.

The Incredible Hulk's failure to meet the same success and popularity really isn't that surprising, though a tad disappointing since it's a great film.  With a premise that pushes an audience's ability to suspend disbelief, a previous film that left a bad taste in just about everyone's mouth, and a star that usually plays villains or seriously unhinged characters, the movie is a bit hard to accept.

For a fan still trying to forget the previous movie, Incredible delivered.  The tone was right, the world was well constructed, and when the Hulk smashed, it wasn't set to depressingly sad music. Throw in some wonderfully appropriate references to the 70's TV show and some of the stronger Hulk comic story lines (and one entertaining video game reference), and the movie really pleased fans.  If anything, fans really dug the idea that the movie coexisted in the same fictional world as Iron Man, with clear connections established by the filmmakers themselves. The Stark cameo goes a long way to making this work, and because of this I can overlook that these scenes were added despite none of the filmmakers even knowing what the Avengers would be about!

For me, I like and enjoy the film very much, but it fails on a couple crucial points.  First, while the villain is wonderfully portrayed by Roth, Bronsky's connection and rivalry with Banner is completely one-sided, and Banner/Hulk, for the most part, has no real idea who or what Bronsky is other than some vague threat.  As a result, the end has no emotional punch, and Banner's choice to try and channel the Hulk has little weight to it.

Second, while I'm not a huge fan of Ruffalo, I admit that Norton may not have worked in the Avengers cast.  I've been fairly impressed with Norton's range in the past, and he does bring some good emotional weight to Banner.  He does a fairly good job emulating Bill Bixby.  But as a crowd pleasing Bruce Banner, the filmmakers could have chosen better.

My last real issue is something shared by all of the live action incarnations of the Hulk: the origin.  In the comics, Banner was transformed by the radiation of a massive explosion.  The scene has drama, tension, and suspense.  The origin featured in the last two film were both inspired by the series, and feature Banner being exposed in a rather mundane lab accident (in the series, Banner's accident is the result of a typo; really).  The event has no real drama, no real weight.  In fact it's so insignificant that it doesn't feel worthy of the end result.

While I think three origin films for one character in a ten year span is definite overkill, if they were to try it again, the  accident itself needs to be the focus of at least the first half of the film, exploring the set up, the accident, and then the consequences.  While I understand that pleasing fans of the TV series is a concern, that aim shouldn't shape the entire film (or films, in this case).

Ultimately, The Incredible Hulk may deliver for fans of the comics, and really tries to service fans of the TV show, but it didn't really appeal to general audiences.  Despite this, it does do a great job building the world that the heroes exist in, and creates a solid foundation to build the following films, and their end goal, The Avengers.

Did I mention that it's only two weeks away?