CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011)

Finally, it arrives. After a small post-credits teaser following Iron Man three years ago, the last movie in the pre-Avengers line-up arrives. Other films in that line-up have included Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk and the disappointing Thor. While The Avengers (scheduled to kick off Summer in May 2012) looks epic, is Captain America good enough to rally the troops and build up enough excitement to make The Avengers the success Marvel is hoping for? You bet it is, despite some of the imperfections.

A couple years back after Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk it was the hot topic to be speaking about 2011 in the series. People were wondering who was going to play Thor and Captain America and how the films would turn out. We all know the mess Thor was, but I have to say I'm pleased with the casting choices for Cap. I've always been a fan of Chris Evans (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The Losers) so I'm glad to see him in a roll that seems to fit well. For a while, there was talk of The Office's John Krasinski getting the roll of the red, white and blue hero. I won't lie, I sort of rooted for him to take the lead at first. He's a charming guy and seems to have that 'rah! rah! sis boom bah!' American spirit that's needed for a roll like this. It only takes one viewing of Captain America though to recognize the movie would have been just ... weird with Krasinski in it.

In the opposing roll to Evans' hero, Hugo Weaving (Transformers, The Matrix) takes on yet another villain role as Red Skull - the Yin to Steve Rogers' Yang. Red Skull is said to be Hitler's right hand man, that is until he grows tired of Hitler's antics and decides to get really serious with the supernatural interest originally put in place by old Adolf himself. Red Skull uses a force he states was left by the Gods for man to find, also known as the cosmic cube (teased about in the Thor post-credits). His plans for the cube's energy are nothing less than that of taking over the world. Skull uses the energy to build tanks and guns, nothing completely unlike the futuristic weapons we would see in Iron Man. However, it seems the army is at its wit's end and doesn't know how to stop him. So, why not use Tony Stark's father, Howard Stark's (Dominic Cooper) genius and combine it with an experimental serum created by German scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine (played perfectly by Stanley Tucci). The result is Captain America.

While it seems a lot of comic book to movie translations fail (I really, really hated Thor), I don' t think anybody will be really disliking Captain America. While it lacks the certain finesse that made X-Men: First Class such a good film, it offers a lot to those who have experienced the older Captain America movies (via an awful Broadway costume) as well as those that dig the comics. You also get some great hints as to a potential plot for The Avengers movie (stay tuned post-credits as usual) as well as some wonderfully done action sequences (when they're piratically done) -despite a slight overdose of cheese. The only part that threw me off were some of the moments where it was clear there was too much CG to make anything look real. It was mostly purposeful, but I wanted the movie to have that nitty gritty forties feel we're used to seeing in movies from that era. Especially when Captain America is riding his bike out of a building as it explodes - reminded me a lot of Machete-type of effects, or something you would see in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Thankfully, we're not subjected to it over and over. I will have to say, however, I was super impressed by the CG look of Steve Rogers' pre-buff mode.

Ultimately, Captain America: The First Avenger gets an open door. Unfortunately, it was one of the summer blockbusters I was looking most forward too and it didn't fully live up to expectations. I think a movie that takes place in that era had an opportunity to be something really special (and not only because the forties is my favorite decade). It could have channeled a number of feelings from that decade including film noir, but it didn't. As a popcorn flick and something to get you excited about next year's Avengers, it doesn't disappoint. The performances are fine and the running time sufficient. There's also a decent amount of humour mixed in with a love story that make this a borderline date movie. But I triple dog dare you not to get the theme for Team America stuck in your head at least once during Captain America. It's almost damn near impossible. America, f**k yeah!

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

GREEN LANTERN (2011)

Two years ago if you asked me the difference between the Green Hornet and the Green Lantern, I would have been perplexed. Now that 2011 is well into its blockbuster season, I can definitely tell you - one makes for a better movie. While it ended up being just okay, The Green Hornet fell disappointingly short - at least compared to what I thought it could be. Green Lantern on the other hand, does a good job of coming a whole lot closer to getting it right.

Ryan Reynolds plays Hal Jordan/Green Lantern and Blake Lively (Accepted) plays his love interest. Following a creed introduced by his father a number when he was a child, Hal is fixated on the idea that in order to survive and succeed in the world you need to be fearless. As it turns out, in order to be chosen by the Green Lantern Corps. one must be fearless. Enter a purple alien and one hell of an adventure for Hal.

With Green Lantern, all the ‘right’ elements are introduced to the viewer. You have the character arc of a likable enough guy, the pretty girl, excellent special effects, an imposing villain and an established fan base. Where I believe Green Lantern goes wrong is how those elements are put together and executed; case in point – the story arc. At just under two hours I was left feeling like there was still something missing. The story seemed to move too quickly; there was a point in the film where Hal confronts the leaders of the Green Lantern Corps. Despite being about a jillion years older than the human species alone – the leaders listen to Hal’s ideas and seem to learn something from them. Apparently evolution of the mind stops after 10, 000 years or so.

The other thing I felt disappointed with was the lack of ad-lib humour (or humour in general) from Reynolds. Now, I don’t know if this was the doing of the producers making sure that the script was left as close to the original as possible, or if Reynolds was just being lame. But part of what I discussed felt missing was also due to the emptiness of Reynolds’ charisma. By the end of the movie you’re left feeling that anybody with abs of steel could have played this role as if un-owned by Reynolds. Looks like Captain America may be the only hope left this summer as a possible candidate for beating out the awesomeness of X-Men: First Class.

Despite all this though, as aforementioned, I still enjoyed Green Lantern and its efforts enough to give it an open door as an entertaining piece of cinema and a great popcorn movie. It’s unlikely you’ll leave the theatre hating this movie or feeling cheated out of your hard-earned dollar. It’s just as likely though that you won’t remember this as being the summer of Green Lantern.

*Stills courtesy of Warner Bros. Studios

Read more...

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011)

After seeing the first four X-Men films over the past decade, I think the biggest surprise for me when watching First Class was that it was actually quite good. While the other films were always 'just okay', thankfully this fifth installment proves that this series is finally learning from it's mistakes and First Class is the first X-Men I've seen that has very little wrong with it - this includes the casting choices and the performances by almost every actor present.

Charles Xavior (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) become friends while on the hunt for the same enemy, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon). Shaw plays a man with the same goal Magneto will have in later movies - one bent on the idea of exterminating the human race. That is to say, all non-mutants of course. Amongst the two are several newly discovered mutants, including (but not limited to) Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (Nicholas Hoult) and Emma Frost (January Jones). We also get two relatively surprising but hilarious cameos from Rebecca Romijn and Wolverine himself, Hugh Jackman.

First Class not only steps up in special effects and style, but we end up with a wonderful mixture of humour, action and drama. Even more surprising, is that in his younger days Professor X was a bit of a player - all the while Magneto was nothing but drama, drama, drama. As a person who never read the comic books, I can't comment on whether or not First Class takes the cake for being faithful to the source material. But I'll say it certainly had a nice amount of references to the previous films and I can only hope that any future X-Men films follows the pattern of this installment. Mainly, that story isn't sacrificed for action and effects.

The other really neat thing about this film is that it's not in 3D! Now I don't have a hate on for 3D, in fact it can be downright enjoyable at times. If anything I'm a bigger fan of the super HD digital picture quality. What I realized with First Class though, is that it really doesn't make a lick of difference either way as far as entertainment goes. That's occurred to me before, but this one sealed the deal on the fact that I won't be seeing 3D nearly as much as I used too. Not only that, the lack of 3D in this case only further enforces why First Class is so well done.

X-Men: First Class gets an open door, and is definitely the best X-Men of the bunch. This is not only the best of the rest, but gains a spot for me up there with the best superhero movies of all time, including Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight. I hope that along with Wolverine coming out next year, First Class gets a sequel - which I'm sure it will. I'm certainly not done seeing McAvoy and Fassbender in these rolls, and look forward to seeing how the rest of the story and characters tie in as well.

*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Read more...

THOR (2011)

Don't be Thor-ry, just don't let it happen again.

Although Fast Five claims to be the beginning of summer, I think this weekend counts way more - which is probably why it's starting off with one of the summer's biggest movies, Thor. However, much like Fast Five, I'm sad to say I'm pretty disappointed in this addition to the Marvel line-up, most recently preceded by the similarly disappointing Iron Man 2. The main difference between the two? I ultimately recommended Iron Man 2. Thor, however, does not get my recommendation - but you already know that from the big red door to the left. I know some people will like Thor and this decision was not the easiest for me to make - because I really wanted to like this film. In the end though, it fell short.

Thor (played well by Chris Hemsworth) is a cocky, arrogant God who only wants to fight, beat and destroy anybody and everybody who's willing to take on the challenge. He's kinda like the one guy outside the bar who wants to start a fight over nothing. After egging on his kingdom's (or realm, or planet - or whatever) number one enemy, his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) banishes him to Earth to teach him a lesson in humanity. There he meets Natalie Portman's character Jane Foster and develops a crush. It doesn't take long for Thor to start feeling that warmness inside and it takes even less time for his heart to grow three sizes - as well as you know, kick the shit out of a big, metal robot. Well done Thor, you attempted to not be such a dick. This all leads to another reason why I didn't like Thor, or why I've heard people mention Thor as their least favorite of the Marvel hero line-up.

If you look at nearly every other Marvel movie out there - the characters/superheroes all have one thing in common. They start off as a being a completely different person than that of their alter ego come the end of the movie. Thor on the other hand, is already a superhero - he just has an attitude problem. You can't make a movie out of someone learning to be less of a douchebag - well you can, but it has the same amount of impact as a 'no drugs' episode of Saved by the Bell. This causes there to be no character arc for Thor, so unlike Tony Stark let's say - you don't become interested in character and hence you care less about the story. Thor literally has less to fight for.

With a mystical being such as Thor, I would have preferred there to have been some mystery left to the guy and his story rather than spell it out as clear as day from the get go. If we could have perhaps left Thor's history more of a mystery - there may have been a bit more magic here. But now, the mystery is history and your left with something about as fun as a Wikipedia article on the subject. On that topic as well, I also enjoyed the scenes on Earth a lot more than on Thor's home planet (or whatever it is...) - so the more time on Earth the better.

Is Thor pretty at least? Hell yeah. Is the acting decent - sure. Does Thor fit all the criteria necessary to be a summer blockbuster? Definitely. But I feel my job as a film critic is to use my criticism in a way that will hopefully move the world of movies forward a little. In Thor's case, I'm attempting to make a statement about films and special effects. At which point do we stop admiring the pretty pictures on screen and focus on the story more? While Hollywood is slowly getting the point more and more as of late - sometimes you get a movie like Thor where it's drab, it's uninspiring, has no heart and is relentless in its effort to have you say 'that looks cool'.

On top of it all, with Avengers coming out next year - it's painfully obvious that Thor exists purely for the sake of lining up a few plot points necessary to further set up The Avengers. Overall, it may as well be considered a two hour long commercial for it. Even after the credits the movie proclaims 'Thor will return in The Avengers' (or something to that effect). So, if the story didn't lose interest for me, the fact it's a blatant marketing scheme and overall plot filler would have. For those of you wondering - you do get the fun stuff you'll be wanting to see and an inside joke here and there you'll enjoy. This includes an appearance by Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, a mention or two of Tony Stark and Bruce Banner - and of course the obligatory bonus scene after the credits.

I'm giving Thor the closed door it deserves. Personally, I'm looking way more forward to Captain America and Green Lantern. Thor feels like a prequel that should have been released perhaps after The Avengers - once we've gotten a chance to become attached to the character for a bit. For those of you out there who will tell me 'Well, Thor was fun - couldn't you just enjoy it for what it was?' The answer is yes - and I don't think it's completely unenjoyable. But realistically, if you want to see the movie - you will. It's the same for any movie, really, but if you're reading this before you're going to the movie - you've probably already made up your mind about whether you'll be standing in line later today or not. All I'm trying to do is point out why it didn't really need to exist in the first place - or at the very least, exist in the fashion that it does.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

SUPER (2010)

Shut up, crime!

If you're wondering why I'm reviewing an 'old' movie, than shut up - you don't know nuttin' about nuttin'. While Super was made in 2010, it's been trickling down the festival spout and finally ended up in a screen near you just last week. So, now that I've gotten that out of the way we can talk about the movie - which needles to say, is actually quite super.

I think the most obvious comparison anybody is going to make to Super is Kick-Ass, and I don't blame them. In fact if I had to, I would imagine the Crimson Bolt in Super (played really well by Rainn Wilson) and Kick-Ass share the same universe in the way that Metropolis and Gotham City co-exist. Both superheros live in the real world in this case and both have motivations for getting their start. While Crimson Bolt is easily the weirder (or quirkier) of the two, he's also the most motivated to get the job at hand done and is less motivated to do because they're 'cool' - as I feel Kick-Ass does. But, this is a debate that could (and probably will or has) go on forever - so I will leave it alone and get back to just Super.

Wilson plays Frank, a man so easy to relate to whatever's on TV that that he falls in love with an ex-druggie named Sarah (Liv Tyler), who seems to be just as into the romantic ideals that rarely live in reality. This is where you begin to see just how much of the story of Super exists in the real world, as well as the oddities that embody a man named Frank. Not long after the honeymoon is over - the honeymoon is over and Sarah leaves Frank for greener pastures. The greener pastures in this case are played by Kevin Bacon, a drug-dealin' scum who preys on Sarah's former weakness for cocaine' and other sitch things. Powerless as he is, Frank reports a kidnapping to the police with no avail. So, quite logically, he becomes a superhero and calls himself the Crimson Bolt.

With Frank's general distaste for drug-dealers, child molesters and people who butt in line at movie theatres (damn straight!), it doesn't take long for the Crimson Bolt to do some damage around town - nor does it take him long to get noticed. Soon people are reporting a masked criminal running around assaulting people. It's not until he gets a new sidekick named Boltie (Juno's Ellen Page) that folks start recognizing Frank for his heroic efforts to clean up the city. Eventually though, he has to face his ultimate enemy in Bacon's Jacques, and fight to get his wife back.

What I really liked about Super was the realism writer and director James Gunn used as not only a comedic device but as a commentary on what being a real life superhero could be like. Not only once but twice do we get to see the vast amount of loitering the Crimson Bolt (and later Boltie) experience while "waiting around for crime to just happen". Other realistic approaches come in the form of the surprising (and unexpected) deaths in Super as well as Ellen Page's yearning to just be part of something bigger than the role she plays as someone who works in a comic book store.

Super easily gets an open door and while it's basically the same thing as Kick-Ass, I still found it better in tone. I'm not sure if it's because I like the person Frank is (a lovable loser, really), or if I've just spent so many years watching Wilson as Dwight on The Office that I know nobody else could have played this role better. Everything works really well though, and by the end you find yourself relating with Frank immensely - especially when you get to see things through his own eyes. And let's not forget Nathan Fillion as The Holy Avenger and that whole shtick. It's the cherry on top of this whole, wondrously fun and sorta touching film.

*Stills courtesy of This is That Productions

Read more...

IRON MAN 2 (2010)

Robert Downey Jr. and a VERY welcome Don Cheadle pump some iron and entertainment into the very anticipated Iron Man 2.

After revealing his identity to the world at the end of the last film, Tony Stark is being hounded government officials to give up the suit. Stark is also being stalked by a Russian played by Mickey Rourke who’s father was dissed by Stark’s father and is out for blood. Gewnyth Paltrow is back to play the new CEO of Stark Enetrpirses, leaving an opening for sexy and suave assistant Scarlet Johanson to take her place. Sam Rockwell also pops up here as weapons dealer Justin Hammer. And of course we get a semi-pointless appearance or two by Sam Jackson as Avenegers director Nick Fury.

Eventually, Tony’s arc reactor design (which powers the Iron Man suit) is leaked, and the government obviously takes things to the wrong level by trying to make it a weapon, as opposed to a method of keeping the peace like Stark built it for. It is at this point that everything goes to hell and Iron Man must come to the rescue and save the day.

Iron Man 2 is not better or worse than the first. A lot of the joy from the first one came in seeing a character arc with Tony as he goes from potential bad guy to overzealous good guy. He also plays with building the suit, trying it out and getting some nice revenge. The film is capped off with Nick Fury briefly entering the picture and inviting Tony to join the Avengers Initiative. Iron Man was a fun, amazing action film. The reason I bring this up is because with the second movie (although we want more of the same) we don’t get much development.

Here’s what we get for plot development. For the record I don’t consider any of this a spoiler, as it's all available in the trailer:

Stark’s friend Rhodey becomes War Machine, something that was hinted at in the first film. Why Tony had arc reactors in all his previous suits ready to go, I don’t know. Don Cheadle by the way, is a welcome replacement for the prudley Terrance Howard who apparently had problems really emoting. Pepper Pots and Tony Stark’s relationship grows more romantic, starting with him making her CEO of his company. Sam Rockwell is introduced as Justin Hammer, a potential return villain for sequels to come.

The stuff that is here for filler and goes nowhere is the following:

Tony’s health is decreasing due to the arc reactor in his chest, and he needs to fix it. I won’t say if he does or not, but in the end you’re kind of like, so what? Nick Fury asks Tony again to become part of the Avengers, as he declined in between the last film and this one. By the end, Tony still seems unsure, but there is promise. And no, I don’t believe it’s a spoiler, because there is no development there, at least not really.

Iron Man 2 (as a movie where maybe nothing is promised) is a fun movie, and certainly worth seeing. You really want geeked out developments here, and besides the stuff I mentioned, we get a few hints here and there for the upcoming Avengers movie, which is wonderfully entertaining. Stay until after the credits by the way, there’s a nice little teaser there. Downey, Rourke and Rockwell all have outstanding performances here, and are incredibly entertaining. Rourke especially, is more entertaining than you may expect. Some of the best moments of the film come from Downey doing his thing, especially when he’s slightly depressed just prior to the climax.

Iron Man 2 seems less of a sequel that is better than the first, and more of a filler and necessity that is building up to both Iron Man 3 and the Avengers, both due out in 2012. It does not however, disappoint as far as entertainment is concerned. It moves at a nice pace, the effects are flawless and there is more than just a few laughs, even if some of them are a little cliché and expected.

Iron Man 2 gets an open door, and is a welcome start to the summer blockbuster season.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...