Wonder Woman (2017): Mike's Review

A couple (or maybe a few) years ago, I wrote an article for Kate about the Flaws of Wonder Woman as a character. And in many regards I still stand by the points I made. However, I feel that I was struggling to simply state the main problem: that Wonder Woman, as she existed, did not work, and would not work without a major overhaul of some sort. And my concern about that happening came down to two things:

1. After a major overhaul, would she still be Wonder Woman?  
2. Would the fans accept these changes?

And the answer to both, it seems, is a qualified yes. Wonder Woman has recently been changed quite a bit, and people largely seem to be enjoying it.

DC comics continuity has become famous for being something of a patchwork quilt draped over a moving target. The writers and the publishers are continually taking things apart, stitching them back together, and rearranging things in order to appease and attract both new audiences and longtime fans. As a result, DC continuity has seen at least five “reboots” in the last thirty years (Crisis on Multiple Earths, Zero Hour, Infinite Crisis, Flashpoint/New 52, and Rebirth). And in the years since my original post, Wonder Woman has been “overhauled” or “retconned” (a comic term here meaning retro-active continuity) at least three times…. Or two. Again, it’s how you measure it.

The Strazinski reboot that I mention in the previous article attempted to address many of my original points… and was met with hatred and scorn. Then Flashpoint/New 52 happened, and Wonder Woman found herself almost back to normal; but with a few twists, which were met with critical acclaim. Most of these changes were seen in the new movie, which despite my, uh, tangent, is what I’m supposed to be talking about. The film has succeeded in taking both new and old elements of Wonder Woman and fusing them in a way that works. And the current comic version of Diana is not far off from the one we see in the film.

Batman v. Superman

For a movie review, I understand I’m putting forth a lot of background information, but I want readers to understand that I went into this movie with two overriding concerns. The first was that Wonder Woman has traditionally been a difficult character to do well; the second was that despite Wonder Woman’s appearance being the best single moment of Batman v Superman, that film was overwhelmingly terrible. Man of Steel, while not nearly as terrible, still severely misinterpreted Superman and demonstrated the filmmakers' complete misunderstanding of what makes the character tick. And while Suicide Squad was fun, its lack of interior logic or believable motivations, combined with shoehorned world building, did little to reassure me that DC and WB knew what they were doing with their fledgling universe.

Wonder Woman is the savior that DC/WB has been searching for. While far from a perfect film, it avoids many of the pitfalls of previous DCEU films, and sidesteps or merely ignores so many of the things that made Wonder Woman so difficult a character to write.

As a film, WW avoids the dark and heavy tones of the previous DC films, and largely ditches their

Due to her background, it never occurs to Diana not to trust

Etta with her sword.

dark, gloomy and CGI-riddled aesthetics. The film is bright and colorful, genuinely happy and funny at times, and surprisingly moving. Aside from the villains, the characters are well-written and acted, and their motivations are pure and clear. Despite all of this, Wonder Woman’s true success is its treatment of Diana as a character and a hero, and the film’s decision to address the “girl power” aspect by nearly ignoring it altogether. Diana has no chip on her shoulder about being a repressed woman. She’s not out to prove herself to anyone, and frankly wouldn’t even understand why a man might question her abilities. The film uses Diana’s background as strength. She isn’t bothered by sexism, because for her it doesn’t exist. And she’s often able to show her worth before it has a chance to reach her.

That the film is able to do this while still taking place in a time period of reduced woman’s rights is even more extraordinary. I never felt that the film was trying to teach me that woman were equal to men, or preach to me about the evils of sexism. Instead, the film, much like Diana, seemed unaware that these were issues at all. They merely went about the business of telling the story of a hero, gender be damned.

With the introduction of Steve Trevor and his romance with Diana, I was worried about how things would proceed. Diana is essentially this statuesque Greek goddess who comes very close to embodying the male fantasy--a naive virgin eager to learn about the world from the first man she meets. I was a little afraid the movie makers would feel compelled to make Steve the assertive one in the relationship, making Diana submissive, and then try to show this in some sort of love scene.

Their relationship, however, is refreshingly even. They fall in love with each other for their own reasons. Traditional Steve was always kind of a jerk, I felt, kind of cocky. But this Steve is kind and always in awe of Diana. Their eventual love scene is handled with more class and respect than I've seen in a movie in ages (i.e., they don't show it).

I really enjoyed how the film handled Steve Trevor. While he tried to protect Diana at first, he ends up kind of chasing her around trying to talk her out of stuff.... Just to end up watching her do it and then backing her up unconditionally.

There is also an action scene at the midpoint of the movie, in which Diana first fully reveals herself as Wonder Woman, which is hands-down phenomenal. Not only was it everything I wanted from a Wonder Woman movie, it was everything I wanted from a Captain America movie. Wonder Woman’s theme music, an electric guitar and drum driven jungle rock riff, makes an impression as the best superhero theme in decades, and helps drive the action scenes expertly.

As I mentioned, however, the film isn’t perfect. The use and quality of CGI in the film is glaringly inconsistent. While at times it seems to blend beautifully, at others it is so obvious and poorly done it nearly pulled me out of the film. Diana’s powers and abilities, as well as Ares’, were equally inconsistent and ill-defined. While Diana’s new origin as a demi-god is from the comics, her powers of reflecting lightening, making a shock wave, and stopping bullets with some sort of invisible force field are all original to the film, and make little sense when thought about. And while Wonder Woman can fly in the comics, I left the film still unsure if she learned to fly or not. While these powers don’t necessarily bother me, the lack of any explanation does.

After my first viewing, I honestly considered the possibility that Wonder Woman may be the best superhero film I’d seen. However, after some thought I realized I was simply so relieved that the film was decent, and that the character was presented in a way truthful to the spirit of the source material, that I was giving the film a little more credit than it was probably due. In the end, Wonder Woman is a decent, and maybe even great superhero movie. And it may have been the shot in the arm the DC movie universe needed. But the film’s real success is found in its treatment of the main character not as an empowered woman but as a hero and, despite her origins, a human being.

Wonder Woman (2017): Kate's Review

I liked it.

Here's why:

First, the cast is excellent. The names are not top-billing; they are top-tier. Across the board, the acting is solid.

Gal Gadot is magnificent. She has more of the Lynda Carter look than any female superhero in the movies or the comics. She's beautiful but not so overwhelming, she seems unapproachable. And she has an extra dose of vulnerability, making her relatable as well as approachable. To me, surprisingly enough, the most heart-aching part of the movie is when she crosses No Man's Land alone. Maybe it's my increasing age (the theater included me, a younger woman, two younger women and their boyfriends, and about four older couples) but it tore at my heart to see her thinking she could fix the world and the town with this single noble act. Three-quarters of the way across the field, she kneels to take a barrage of bullets. She can handle it; she's a goddess; she's not going to die. And yet, she's so (temporarily) alone, I teared up.

Chris Pine is a more than decent Steve Trevor and not at all boring (Lyle Waggoner makes me so sleepy, my brain stops working). This Steve Trevor is self-effacing, passionate yet surprisingly non-argumentative. His passion doesn't stem from a need to force others to his view but from inward conviction. So he's confident in his masculinity without being condescending or demanding. (See below for comments on the ending.)

Most importantly, from a writer's point of view, there's an actual internal and external problem. The story-line is surprisingly tidy. Me, I don't think that frills are necessary. A decent arc is all a movie, novel, or short story needs.

Wonder Woman's internal arc is fairly mild, but it is established early on, built on throughout the movie, and paid-off exactly as required. The external problem is also paid-off (see below). There are no radical twists here, and there don't need to be. Tell me a story. Make it a good one. Don't try to make it something it isn't.

I admit to being initially a tad disappointed that the story was taking place in the past. But I got over that disappointment fairly quickly. And it prepared me for later outcomes.

The fight sequences are notable and fun to watch--very Matrix-y, and I thought the use of the lasso as both truth enforcer AND weapon was quite effective.

The movie resolves some of the issues Mike refers to in his critique. Since this is an origin story, Wonder Woman figuring out her motive--what do I care about and why?--becomes the plot. After the origin story is finished, of course, she will need to find additional and more concrete reasons.

Having a god be her main rival makes sense but does move the villainy way beyond someone even like the Joker. And in all honesty, I am the kind of person who likes to watch superheroes do things like rescue kittens out of trees and move people to safety when a dam breaks. However, Wonder Woman as pure goddess is a nice treat.

It's 2017! So Wonder Woman touting female power through a sexy costume is okay, and I appreciated that her look was part culture/part practicality/part comfort. I also appreciated the movie's initial point that although the Amazonians won on the beach, guns utterly change the equation when it comes to warfare (take that, stupid Ewoks!). Finally, the lasso as only capable of producing the truth so far as the villain understands it (see below) is a cool problem that I think should always have been part of the Wonder Woman package (it allows for some great conflicts).

I'm afraid that future romance and relatability may still be struggles for Wonder Woman. But this movie succeeded at providing (what I understand to be) the classic story without apology.

*Spoilers--I Mean It--I Give Away the Ending--You've Been Warned* 

(1) Steve Trevor

I sighed a bit when I realized that Steve Trevor was going to sacrifice himself. Elsewhere I've written about how death can be a writing cop-out. However, in this case, it was fairly inevitable. Supposing that Steve Trevor bailed from the airplane at the last minute? And was rescued by the Amazonians and nursed back to health? He might live as long as Steve Rogers' Peggy Carter--but there's no guarantee; Pine gives Trevor that Kirk-like joie de vivre even in his own death. The guy lives on the edge. He was always going to die young.

In fact, he was always going to die. No matter what. Diana is going to lose him. No matter what. That's part of her heartache. That's why ultimately, she and Superman become a couple. Their human lovers die. Death is what happens when a person isn't immortal.

So I accepted his death.

From Mike: And while his sacrifice could be seen as a bit cliché, and as the man making the sacrifice in place of the woman, I saw it as Steve doing what he did throughout the film: seeing what Diana was capable of, and letting her do it while handling the stuff he could do. Diana had a god to fight, so of course Steve is going to take out the plane. Obviously he couldn’t swap places with her. 

(2) David Thewlis as Ares actually took me by surprise. Keep in mind, I was surprised by the end of The Sixth Sense, so it doesn't take much. (I thought the writers were going to pull a real switcheroo and make Ares a woman, such as Dr. Poison.)

He is kind of a side-note. As Mike mentions, he doesn't have the clearest of motivations. However, I appreciated his Loki-like persona and arguments. The movie is not a philosophical one by any means. But his argument to Diana caps off both the external and internal conflicts. I was especially impressed that he makes his case while wrapped in the lasso: he believes what he is saying. The serpent always speaks in half-truths.

We don't hear Diana's inner rebuttal, but we've seen enough to understand why she rejects Ares. She truly enjoys people--their oddities, their funniness, their differences. She likes not only Steve Trevor but Etta Candy, Charlie, Sameer, The Chief, the townspeople, babies, the person she thinks Sir Patrick to be. She is honestly invested in their troubles and in their ordinary enjoyments. Rejecting Ares may be a no-brainer but it's a definite choice, and she makes it willingly.

As an origin story, I'm not sure that I'd place Wonder Woman with Christian Bale's Batman Begins. But it deserves to be placed within the origin-story pantheon.

Ha ha. A little Greek humor there at the end.

The Dark Knight Rises Review Goes Forward!

When: 2012, Bale's 40th film

Genre: Superhero, Dark Fantasy/Sci-Fi, Nolan

Mike and Kate reviewed the first movie of Nolan’s series, Batman Begins as part of List 9, Superhero Movies. They reviewed the second movie of the series, The Dark Knight, for the current list.

KATE SAYS this is a very, very good movie that could have been a great one.

I say more positive stuff at the end, so if you want to skip the negative, skip to the paragraph beginning what makes the movie work.

(WARNING: While I don't give away the movie's surprises, my review does give away many plot points; if you want to see The Dark Knight Rises entirely unspoiled, skip down to "Mike's review.)

What keeps this movie from being great: Bane’s unclear motivation.

Bane starts out as a terrorist with a general, philosophical, short-range agenda who becomes a warlord with a specific, personal, long-range goal.

Terrorism is devastating. Part of its devastation is that it does not lend itself to long-range goals. Consider 9/11 which occurred after at least one failed attempt, was carried out by a limited number of terrorists, partly failed (the one airplane did not reach its target), and involved no long-term end game (the terrorists did not plan to live long enough to occupy any portion of the United States). The mastermind behind it did not participate; and New York City and Washington D.C. continued to function as cities during and after the crisis, recovering in a very short period of time.

Such acts of pure malice, as movie fans have recently seen, are almost always cruel, purposeless, and nihilistic with no long-term constructive goals (and thank goodness for those willing to identify and condemn such acts). In many ways, Nolan successfully explored this type of random malice in The Dark Knight.

Bane, however, is a different type of villain. As a terrorist, he is rather implausible; Ra`s Al Gul’s limp philosophy is not enough to convince people to die (as Bane’s followers do in droves).

Bane as warlord is far more plausible, except he’s given no motivation (at the beginning of the film) for adopting such a role.

This is where Nolan’s approach to story-telling gets me a trifle irritated: Bane is given a plausible, strong, and interesting motivation . . . at the end of the movie. His motivation is treated as a big surprise. (It isn’t that big a surprise—especially to anyone who has some familiarity with the Batman story.) If the plausible, strong, and interesting motivation had instead been provided at the beginning of the film, Bane's story arc not only would have made more sense, it would have strengthened/brought together the disparate arcs.

As it is, I spent most of the movie, thinking, This doesn’t make much sense. Without the personal touch (which Batman Begins does have), the villain is kind of blah. 

What makes the movie work is (1) Nolan is honestly more interested in heroes than villains; this makes him a refreshing change from, say, Burton, who seemed almost pathologically disinterested in his heroes in favor of his villains; (2) the CITY is the hero/main protagonist, not a person.

With Gotham City as main protagonist, Gordon and the cops (John Blake) become major players in a way that I’ve never seen in any Batman franchise. This is very cool (Joseph G-L, by the way, has grown into a downright fascinating actor—the next time we do an actor portfolio, Mike, we’ll have to choose him! and then someone like Nicole Kidman to even out the genders).

Gotham as city-state under siege is also accurate. I felt almost like I was watching a war-movie except Nolan prefers to focus on individuals, not nations. Once placed under siege, Gotham functions quite plausibly; the fact that Bane and his goons can’t be everywhere at once; the pockets of resistance; the everyday life of the “ordinary” citizen; the kangaroo courts (nice cameo in this section!). More than any director I’ve seen, Nolan really explains the underlying problem with the whole “we are the 99%” philosophy. Infrastructures, including infrastructures run by supposedly evil rich people, keep civilization afloat. Fact is: Anarchy stinks.

Nolan makes us understand why it stinks. And Selina Kyle’s character development—in the face of so-called revolution—bears a strong Nolan touch. (By the way, major kudos to grown-up Anne Hathaway for selling the part.)

Changing tone completely—

The Bruce Wayne arc seems to take place outside the other arcs, for the very good reason that it takes place outside the other arcs. It is interesting in its own right, but the switch between the Gotham City arcs (which include Gordon, Selina, and the cops) and the Bruce Wayne arcs (which include Bruce, Alfred, and Ra`s) is a tad awkward. The ending of The Dark Knight Rises is epic but unlike in The Dark Knight, the disparate arcs do not completely come together at the end (though I do prefer the former movie to the latter).

The movie is absolutely worth seeing in a theater! Nolan is trying to do so much, and he comes so close, and the notes he does get right are so right on, this really isn’t a movie you want to waste on a home theater system.

And thematically, what Nolan has to say about HOW to be a hero, what to aim for, the connection to life and death as well as risk and hope is truly profound. I found this movie far more uplifting than The Dark Knight. "Rises" is the operative word, and it reoccurs thematically in a number of segments--from Blake's belief in Batman to Gordon's belief that Bane should be resisted to the chant of the men in the pit.

In some ways, Nolan is one of those director-philosophers who has so much to say, he can be excused for going on and on. There aren’t very many of these director types. (No, Lucas, you aren’t one of them.) But they do deserve a little latitude.

As for Christian Bale—he’s good, like always, but Oldman and Joseph G-L rise to the top. In a way, the movie encapsulates for the characters how I feel about the actors. But I won’t explain further—the movie does it for me.

MIKE SAYS one thought kept recurring to me when I left the theater: Joseph Gordon-Levitt is my new favorite actor. The Dark Knight Rises is the epic conclusion to an epic retelling of Batman and features career defining roles for almost everyone involved. Despite all this, JGL steals the show again and again as the optimistic and hopeful soul of Gotham.

The film combines several Batman story-lines, including "No Man's Land", "Knightfall", and "The Dark Knight Returns."  Despite this, Nolan manages to meld these things together into something truly new and epic. The scope of the film is truly impressive and the stakes FEEL higher than any other comic movie to date, thanks to Nolan making the city feel alive and cohesive. Sure, saving the world is a big deal, but saving your home is much more intimate.

The story and its repercussions are so huge, the movie nearly bursts at the seams with the sheer amount of stuff it has to carry out. With this insane juggling act comes some rather slow transitions, which cause the movie to drag in some parts. The sad truth is that the film does have some flaws; despite this, the movie is amazing. 

While I understand the cinematic importance of a "trilogy", I think the film might have worked better as a two-parter, the first part ending with Batman's defeat by Bane; the second picking up with his quest to return. If the film had been executed this way, I think it would have avoided the stilted progression of Bruce's story that Kate mentions.

If there was one sequence of the film that made me truly happy, it was the ending.  Nolan brought the film to an emotionally satisfying, logical conclusion that stays true to the feel of Nolan's Batman universe. While trying to avoid blatant spoilers, I will say that it's satisfying to have a huge film franchise make story decisions on what works and NOT on shock factor.

Bale's Performance here is strong and enjoyable; yet the other actors in the film overpower him in sheer interest level.  While Batman is the headliner of the series, Nolan really seems more interesting in telling the story of the fight for the soul of the city rather than the journey of Batman.  Bale delivers a great, determined, and even haunted performance, but his role is ultimately not as interesting as Blake's.  While I don't think this means JGL is a better actor (ok, I DO, but that's not my point), I think he just had better material to work with.  My only critique about Bale's performance is the "stuffed nose" quality of Batman.  The mask appears to both block his nose AND squeeze his lower face, giving a very unsophisticated look when the Batman speaks!

I think Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy may form the definitive exploration of what it means to be a hero, despite some missteps. I actually have a lot more I could talk about, but I don't want to ruin anything for potential viewers.

But one small spoiler I will discuss is a small disappointment: while I do love the Bat-suit introduced in the second movie, I really wish some small redesign had taken place to make the suit feel just a little fresh.  The same suit features throughout the movie and while it does the job, commercialism has spoiled me to the point that I crave the "New Improved Model!," whether it's needed or not.

But again, I do have to stubbornly admit that even in this, Nolan refused to compromise on what would sell, and instead stayed true to the story, which is pretty new and improved when compared to most franchises out there.

The Dark Knight

When: 2008, Bale's 35th film

Genre: Superhero, Dark Fantasy/Sci-Fi, Nolan

Mike and Kate reviewed the first movie of Nolan’s series, Batman Begins as part of List 9, Superhero Movies.

Mike says watching The Dark Knight again in the aftermath of the giddy adventure that was Avengers is like getting a cute new puppy...and then finding out that your crazy neighbor ate it. While one is a fun and memorable experience, the other, while more emotionally potent, kinda takes the fun out of it.

Just to be clear, I love The Dark Knight. A universally accepted and loved (not to mention dramatically relevant) version of Batman was previously the high point of the past superhero-filled decade.  After the two Shumacher movies, it was pretty gratifying to have such a serious take on Batman.

The trouble is, Avengers reminded us of just how much of a party superhero movies can be, revealing The Dark Knight as the guy brooding in the corner...which is pretty appropriate, now I think of it.

Despite its heavy tone, the film is still one of the most epic movies of the genre; while length certainly helps this, the journey of each character, and the scope of the film and setting, hearkens back to the epic films of the classic movie era. Sad to say, but The Dark Knight may be our generation's equivalent to The Ten Commandments.

My favorite thing is just how much film noir flavors the movie.  Replace high-tech props with prohibition-era gadgets, and you'd have a 30's Gangster film with a much cooler detective. As Batman was created at the end of the 1930's, this is actually pretty appropriate.

Bale's performance is pretty impressive. While Batman's arc doesn't seem as large as that of the other characters, he still undergoes a journey from cautious hope to desperate sacrifice. While he definitely sports a different look in this film (the most telling sign is just how big the original Bat-suit is on him), he still pulls off a great Bruce Wayne/Batman: definitely the first actor to do so (meaning, previous actors usually are only good as Bruce OR Batman).

I love the look of the film as well;  the updated Bat-suit is the first film version that I actually like. Batman's comic look features far more cloth, and I was never sold on the whole rubber look.  The new, streamlined, agile suite really suits him better and requires far less of a jump in belief.

I enjoy the Joker, the retelling of Two-Face (Harvey Two-Face is SUCH a gangster name!), Michael Caine . . . everything but Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. While Katie Holmes didn't exactly make the role endearing, I could at least endure her.  Gyllenhaal is downright annoying; her self-righteous and close-minded choice to cut ties with Bruce just makes the character's death that much more of a relief.

My only real regret in transitioning from this film to The Dark Knight Rises next week is the knowledge that the upcoming sequel was not what Nolan originally foresaw.  The Joker was important and had definitely not made his last appearance.  He will be missed in the coming film.  Despite some Batman & Robin inspired fears, I AM getting excited for next week.  I have some definite thoughts on what might happen, and they tend to go against the rampant rumors online.

My official call, which is COMPLETELY unsupported by anything floating around right now, is that Batman lives, Gordon-Levitt is just a cop, and the general public is going to be a tad disappointed because of that . . . at least at first. 

But hey, at least we're finally free of Bat-nipples, right?

Kate says I’ve always found the Joker completely disturbing, so I wasn’t completely committed to seeing The Dark Knight when it came out; this review represents only my second viewing. (I am far more willing to see The Dark Knight Rises.)

The Joker does come with an intrinsic problem—why would so many hoodlums help him? Terrorists follow an ideology. The Joker has nothing to offer his followers in terms of belief or loyalty, and psychopathy isn’t THAT common (which is kind of Nolan’s point).

However, the Joker as chaos/anarchy/badness-for-the-sake-of-badness does help Nolan sell his theme: Batman as anti-hero is a symbol, the dark side of heroism where difficult choices have to be made, not everyone comes out alive, and some things just have to be endured. (Plus Heath Ledger as the Joker is far more impressive than Nicholson; anyone can act nuts; it takes real skill to be a nutty criminal who acts marginally sane while saying nutty things.)

I get back to Nolan's theme below, but first, the negative:

The movie is too long. I’ve begun to notice that Nolan’s way of storytelling is to start with a premise, then let it unwind. The result, on the one hand, is stories with a natural, real-world feel despite the sometimes fantastic backgrounds. On the other hand, Nolan’s movies kind of go on and on and on without any obvious goal. By the time I reached 1:20 minutes of The Dark Knight, I had to keep reminding myself, “This is the MID-way point. The movie has eighty minutes to go.”

In a way, this unending-saga-with-seemingly-no-structure feel is due to the Spiderman 3 problem: too many villains. The Dark Knight has Harvey Dent (Two-Face), the Mob, Joker. In order to make it unwind in a natural way, the movie HAS to be over 2 hours long.

This is unfortunate because while the first 1/2 of the movie is kind of random and slow, the last 1/2 of the movie is magnificent—suspenseful, unexpected, strongly underscored by good performances and Nolan’s theme. The final exchange between Batman and Gordon delivers a sense of true sacrifice. The scene where Lucius types in his name and sees that Wayne kept his promise brought tears to my eyes (I also love the part where Reese realizes that his employer saved him despite what he planned to do).

Unfortunately, the second part of the movie wouldn’t have worked without the groundwork of the first part—it’s a pity movies can’t be like operas used to be where the audience would get a program with background/bring-you-up-to-date notes, so movies could start in the middle.

I doubt I’ll watch The Dark Knight again, but there are a few other things I like about it: the move to Wayne Towers, which I think matches not only Nolan’s vision but Bale’s look much better than Wayne Manor.

And the cast. This isn’t just a fun, neat cast like in The Prestige; this is an unbelievably high quality cast all the way from the top stars down to the mobsters, including people like Ritchie Costner (as Chechen).

And Bale, of course, does a great job. He has acquired a spare, almost gaunt lankiness that makes him far more attractive than during his heart-throb days. He has also acquired a Gary Oldman quality.

Gary Oldman can morph into any role. He isn’t Gary Oldman; he is...whoever. I think Bale has reached that point. During The Dark Knight, while I never forgot that I was watching Bale (after all, I was reviewing the movie for this list!), I never felt that Bale was anything other than Batman/Bruce Wayne. This, frankly, is seldom true of other movie superheroes (though with Stark/Downey, Jr., the blend of actor with superhero is kind of the point). Bale has gained that Gary Oldman quality where the actor dissolves into the character—which is fairly impressive.

NEXT WEEK: Dark Knight Rises--our second theater review!!

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?

The Incredibles and TMNT

Superhero & universe: Mr. Incredible and family, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Is it based on a comic? Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was first published by Mirage Studios in 1984 and has been published on and off by different publishers through the years, most recently by IDW. The Incredibles first appeared in the Pixar film and later moved into comics.

Haven't they already made that? The Turtles have appeared in three (not counting revamps) separate animated series, each popular in a different decade (late 80’s/early 90’s, early 2000’s, and now the 2010’s). They have also been featured in four theatrical movies, a live action television series, and a TV movie. They will star in the hotly debated upcoming live action movie Ninja Turtles, produced by Michael Bay, which will reinvent the Turtles as members of an alien species.

A sequel to The Incredibles has been talked about for some time, but there is currently nothing in production.

What the heck does this have to do with Avengers? Both films feature a group of heroes working together for the greater good. Both of these films received wide publicity, and will likely have been seen by the potential audience of Avengers. The one major difference, however, is that these two movies introduced the team together, whereas Avengers will intertwine characters that have been established by individual films.

Mike says the funny thing about these two movies is that the better of the two, in fact one of the best superhero films ever made, was never actually based on a comic. When I first saw The Incredibles, it was a revelation. Here in one film, you had everything a comic fan could ask for: Mythology, different ages of heroism, in-jokes and genre references, and a team of likable and easily understood heroes.

While it seems to draw on the history of comics, the film is fairly original, and is well-constructed in plot and pacing. The human elements of the film are believable and engaging, and put to rest any concerns I had about Pixar finally doing a human-based film.

The Incredibles is exciting, touching, imaginative and a loving homage all wrapped into a package that many different age groups can watch and enjoy.

TMNT was an attempt to revamp a franchise into something very similar to The Incredibles... and it doesn't fall very short of that goal. TMNT manages to create a world for the turtles that is loyal to almost every version of the franchise that came before, while lightly tweaking the concept in a way that allows for new viewers. Despite this, I think the film largely remains interesting to the fan of the Turtles, and didn't really succeed in restarting the series.

The two films together work well as a statement about team and family, and how working together towards a common goal is not always as easy as it seems. The Incredibles especially concentrates on how each member of the team must reconcile his/her individual issues in order to work together, while TMNT examines the need to overcome group issues.

Of the two movies, The Incredibles has the far simpler plot and story, and works so much better because of this. TMNT spends so much time explaining the complicated mythology of the villains, that the viewer finally has to just roll with it, enjoying the humor and action.

I think both films can also show us a bit of what to expect from Avengers. TMNT shows how a movie can be a sequel to multiple films, tie them together, and still be its own entity. TMNT could easily be a sequel to any of the TV series or movies, and manages this by keeping a very vague and flexible connection to it.

The Incredibles shows us how a film can successfully introduce the mythology of a world and still tell a successful story, which Avengers may try for new audience members.

Overall, these are two great films that are not only a blast to watch, and a boon to any superhero movie collection, but they give my subconscious probably the best material to work with while I dream about seeing Avengers in the four weeks to May 4.

Kate says my reaction to TMNT was the same reaction I always have to the Teenage Mutant Ninjas Turtles. Really?! What?! Who came up with this idea?

Ninja turtles is a way more baffling concept than talking cars.

And yet, like always, I got invested in the story. Despite the rather confusing Lord-of-the-Rings beginning, TMNT is a smooth ride with interesting problems accompanied by that oh so familiar wisecracking.

And, like always, I was impressed by the turtles' distinct personalities. Sure they are types--responsible Leonardo, genius Donatello, clown Michelangelo, rogue Raphael--but they are types that remain consistent and instantly recognizable which, considering that even real turtles look much the same to me (however politically incorrect such a statement might be), is rather remarkable.

In fact, back during the cartoon and first movie, I distinctly remember having a favorite turtle (after I got over thinking, "Really?! What?!"). I don't remember now who that was. Based on my age (late teens) I would guess the angsty Raphael but I've always had a penchant for dryness, so maybe it was Leonardo.

I must mention the tribute-to-Buffy/Sarah-Michelle-Geller-voiced April. Now, there's perfect casting!

Regarding the link between The Incredibles and TMNT, I must say these movies totally go together! Yes, yes, I know Mike and I are the ones that put them together; all I can say is, boy, we are smart!!

Not only do both movies have a similar look/style, both deal with fundamental life events: a mid-life crisis, sibling estrangement. And both--though action oriented--make the life event intrinsic to the pay-off. I recently watched part of the first Toy Story and thought, again, what a difference it makes for any movie to tackle basic human feelings. I feel the same way about The Incredibles and TMNT. Jealousy, fear of abandonment, fear of failure, uncertainty about one's place: these emotions speak to kids, adults, and movie critics. Movies like The Incredibles and TMNT end up making larger points about the human condition than a million artsy films will ever make about the so-called profundity of life.

Hancock and Unbreakable

Superhero & universe: Hancock, Bruce Willis

Is it based on a comic? Neither movie is based on any one comic but are explorations of the genre itself. Unbreakable is unique in that the entire movie centers on the origin, instead of featuring it merely as the first of three acts. Neither character seems based on any hero in particular, though several references, allusions, and homages are paid in both movies to several different comic heroes.

Haven't they already made that? Unbreakable is Shyamalan's second major feature film and is consistent with his style of film making and writing (even though his movies have degraded over the years). As such, any of his movies are likely to take place in Philadelphia, deal with supernatural happenings in an everyday world, have a slower pace, and end with a twist.

Hancock is more of a cash grab (hey, Will Smith and superhero movies are popular! I have an idea...) disguised as a satirical homage to the genre. Thus both movies should have some small air of familiarity.

What the heck does this have to do with Avengers? What's so amazing about Avengers is that it's a big budget major summer release, and is expected to draw a wide audience from a large pool of interests. Simply, this film, despite its origins, has mass appeal.

Unbreakable and Hancock were both superhero films aimed at the broad public rather than just comic fans. As a result, many of the Avengers' viewers this summer will be going into the theater with little more than these two films under their belts. Both films also helped bring superheroes more to the surface of current pop culture and could have contributed to the likelihood that Avengers was made at all!

Kate says before I get to the theme that these movies hold in common, I should first say that I was extremely reluctant to see Hancock. I had heard very negative things about the ending, including that it was a depressing film.

Depressing?! Wow--I must have a totally different definition of depressing!

I was thoroughly impressed by the ending of the movie. I did think the plot was a tad . . . unformed. In some ways, the main character arc belongs to Hancock but in many ways, it truly belongs to Ray. Both arcs could work congruently, but the writers actually switch arcs in the middle of the movie--which gives the movie an unbalanced feel. Also, the whole pairing idea, though very cool, is kind of tacked on.

I guess, to sum up, the main problem is that the movie has no consistent point of view.

Setting aside the uneven plotting, the movie is very enjoyable. Will Smith was perfectly cast since he can do comedy, effortlessly, and drama, effortlessly, and Hancock calls for both. He also delivers that gritty sense of everydayness that sets Hancock apart from most superheroes.

Which brings me to the theme. Again, admittedly, the movie is rather confused here. It starts off as an exploration on the need for superheroes (so much so that I was convinced the movie was a kind of existential humanist soapbox), then morphs into an exploration of self-restraint as part of individual growth, and then turns into pure action/discovery, no theme.

One thread that does remain through all of these is what makes a hero? A superhero? Is he a superhero if he saves the victims but destroys the city? Is he a superhero if he becomes mortal?

Watching Hancock completely demolish buildings in the first twenty minutes is, admittedly, down-right hilarious, especially since it raises the issues of "how much damage can a superhero do?" and "why wouldn't people be just as frightened of the superhero's power as of the villain's?" and "why would any government trust a superhero?" and "man, who is going to pay for all this?"

In the end, the power isn't what makes Hancock a superhero (though it does make him cool), but his choices. In the same sense, Ray is always a hero, being kind and tolerant and seeing the best in others while Mary supplies the intelligence/comprehension necessary to the situation. Together, they form a fairly cool triumvirate of superhero qualities!

Unbreakable also grapples with the nature of the superhero. The better-written movie (really, scriptwriters: one-problem-one-point-of-view works wonders as a writing approach), it demonstrates a knowledge of the genre that surpasses Hancock. It also gives rise to some subtle questions: is a superhero only a superhero in opposition? Does light need darkness in order to define itself and, vice versa, does darkness need the light to acknowledge its own existence?

The similarity between the two is the gentle peeling back of character. Both movies are blessed with powerhouse actors: Bruce Willis, Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson (who is perfect! proving that he can excel at restrained scene-chewing with the right director), Robin Wright (Penn), and Spencer Treat Clark, who I thought vastly outclassed Haley Joel Osmont as one of Shyamalan's child actors. (Shyamalan does have a talent directing them in general.)

Both movies are character-based although Hancock is less sure of itself. Both movies explore the nature of the superhero through a specific superhero persona. Both manage to create inner conflict in a genre where it is much easier to fall-back on external problems but far more satisfying to combine external with internal pay-offs. And the conclusions to both are not only satisfying but add to the genre's ideas about itself.

Mike says while I may have a strong dislike for Shyamalan now, I really owe a lot to Unbreakable. The film, in its premise and dialog, made me comfortable and even proud of my interest in comics. The film also gave me a direction to take my appreciation: into learning about the role comics play in culture (which would be a post of its own!)

When I first saw the film I was blown away by the pacing, the acting, and the strength of the writing. The story knew where it was going, and it took the time it needed. It also made a bold statement about the need for heroes and champions in our modern world.

Rewatching it, I discovered that it didn't age at all for me. The film feels fairly timeless, and all the aspects I mentioned above are still tight and well done. Bruce Willis, already the American embodiment of the "tough as nails, everyman hero", is inspired in the role.

While the end of the movie has been generally panned, I find myself pretty fond of it, despite wishing we had seen the events instead of reading about them. For the film to be an origin story for both characters is brilliant; to make the hero's discovery the goal of the villain was downright diabolical genius. The film stands as a solid statement about superheroes and the need for hope in our culture.

Hancock, is, as Kate says, entertaining but unfocused. The film is fun and certainly fulfills the needs of the audience who went to see it: People looking to see Will Smith be funny and blow things up.

Which leads me to mostly overlook many of the flaws in the film, which are pretty glaring if only because the film never steps up and takes a solid stance on any one issue. Seeing the redemption of a hero is a cool thing, and the nice dose of reality to the concept provides a lot of laughs.

Despite this, entire characters and subplots could have been dropped, and a few flashbacks would have made the film fairly epic. The idea itself (which is vaguely similar to Hawkman) is always rich enough to pull off a trilogy.

I think the two films work fairly well together because they both begin with a man discovering that he is not what he believes he is. Willis is not a man but a superhero, and Hancock isn't a drunk, a screw up, or a hero, he's a god. Very cool stuff.

Together the films make me think about heroes in the real world, how they might work, how others would respond, and where they might be. In fact, both films are pretty accessible to average viewers, and I would take advantage of that to suck a friend into superhero addiction.