Deadpool (2016)

Deadpool is not your grandfather's comic book movie. For that matter, it's not your father's comic book movie. In fact, I'm not entirely sure who's comic book movie this is. It's raunchy, gorey, hyper-violent, foul-mouthed,outrageous, hilarious and quite possibly the most fun comic book movie since the 1966 Batman! It is quite possibly the most R-Rated movie I've watched since Pulp Fiction. In short, I loved every bawdy, over the top moment of it. I will warn, the rest of this review may not exactly be Safe For Work.

You know you're in for something different when the opening credits read "some douchebag's film", "produced by asshats", and "directed by an overpaid tool". The movie concerns Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds, "God's Perfect Idiot"), an ex-Special Forces operative turned mercenary. He meets and falls for a hooker named Vanessa (Morena Baccarin, "a hot chick"). When he finds out he's dying of cancer, Ajax (Ed Skrein, "a British Villain") offers him a chance to be part of an experiment that will cure his cancer. The experiment, in a vile and disgusting secret base, ends up giving him regenerative powers but makes him look like "an avocado had sex with an older, disgusting avocado". Wilson takes on the moniker of Deadpool and goes out for bloody revenge. Along the way Colossus (Stefan Kapicic, "A CGI Character") tries to make him give up his murderous ways and join the X-Men, something Deadpool consistently flips off.

Ryan Reynolds played Wilson for the first time in 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine. That movie is mostly okay, but the character of Deadpool was completely wasted. Especially since they decided to sew his mouth shut, eliminating one of the character's biggest traits, his non-stop wisecracking. Reynolds loved the character enough to keep pushing to get his own movie. Reynolds is hysterically funny in this, cracking wise, drawing childish pictures of the villain, and generally breaking the fourth wall again and again. Actually, this movie doesn't so much as break the fourth wall as it burns it down, scatters the ashes all over the place and farts in it's general direction for good measure. There is literally a fourth wall break inside a fourth wall break in this movie, something not even Groucho Marx ever did.

The rest of the cast somehow manages to keep up Reynolds. I'm not sure how they do it, but they do it. While Baccarin is ultimately reduced to Damsel in Distress, her early scenes with Reynolds are touching and funny, as is the scene where she unmasks him at the end. Skrein's Ajax, real name Francis (a fact Deadpool loves reminding him of) is appropriately nasty. His henchwoman Angel Dust (Gina Carano) as is gorgeous as she is deadly. She gives Colossus a good run for his money in the fight department at the end. Brianna Hildebrand as Negasonic Teenage Warhead is the one character, however, most equipped to meet Deadpool on equal terms. Their back and forth is an absolute highlight of the film.

I would say that this tops the earlier Wolverine movie, but there's really no comparison. They're two movies on completely different levels of filmmaking, which is weird since they sort of inhabit the same shared universe. Deadpool is clearly supposed to be part of Fox's X-Men Universe. Besides Colossus, there are several scene at Professor Xavier's School. Mercifully, you don't need to have seen any of the other movies to enjoy this one nor do you need to see this one to enjoy the other movies. It stands on its own gloriously and wonderfully. And at under 2 hours, it isn't as bloated as other superhero movies so it doesn't overstay it's welcome.

Good thing, too. Although if you did need to see X-Men to enjoy this or vice versa, there would be a lot of disappointed children since there is no way any child should see this. There were reports of parents taking their children to see this and being outraged by the content. To them I say: "Hi. There's this little thing known as the internet. Maybe you heard of it? Lets you check out the content of movies before seeing them? Yeah, maybe you should look into that in the future." For the rest of us, however, this is one wild trip.

Serial Saturday: Captain America (1944)

For those of you who aren't yet sick of reading about Captain America, here's one more review for you. If you are sick of reading about Captain America, that's okay, too. This is the last one of his movies I'll be reviewing for quite a while. It also happens to be his first screen appearance.

"That's what you get for saying I'm not Captain America!"

If you are intimately familiar with the Marvel Cinematic Universe Captain America movies and manage to seek out this 15 chapter Republic serial, you may be a little confused watching it. In this version, Captain America is two-fisted District Attorney Grant Gardner, out to stop the evil machinations of The Scarab, who has no connection to Adolf Hitler but is a scientist out for revenge against the members of an expedition that cheated him out of millions. Gardner's assisted by his secretary Gail Richards. He also has no shield or super powers but he does have a gun. He also doesn't really look like Captain America. He has a sweater with a star on it that he wears under his suit (either the city is really cold or he sweats something fierce) and a hood with an A on it. He also wears sensible shoes instead of boots. In short, there's no Army, no Bucky, no Super Soldier formula, and no Nazis.

You may have read the above and thought "wait! What?". I get that. There seems to be two theories as to why the serial is that way. One is that it was planned for a different character, quite possibly Fawcett's Mr. Scarlet. When that comic was cancelled, Republic just rewrote the serial and substituted Captain America. The proof of this some say is a chapter called The Scarlet Clue which has nothing Scarlet in it.

The other, just as likely theory, is that Republic read the sample pages provided to them by Timely Comics (Marvel before they were called Marvel) and decided to do their own thing anyway. There's plenty of precedent for this as just about all of Republic's adaptations pretty well ignored the source material, going right back to Dick Tracy in 1937. The four Dick Tracy serials may be good but they have as much to do with Dick Tracy as I do.

Just another Tuesday in this serial

That said, the question remains of whether or not this is any good. It is, all things considered. Dick Purcell plays the title character and while he's no Buster Crabbe, he's no Myron Healey either. He's acceptable if unexceptional, a decent middle of the road serial hero who fares slightly better than most of the stiffs Republic hired after. As his gal Friday Richards, Lorna Gray is an admitted step up from the ten year old Bucky of the comics. At the least, she's easier on the eyes even if she doesn't get to do much beyond getting captured and tied up.

Sidebar: why did so many superheroes in that era have 10 year old sidekicks? In particular Cap, taking a child into an active war zone seems wildly reckless. I get that it was a different time and the publishers wanted to appeal to children, in particular in the wake of the popularity of Robin the Boy Wonder but still...

Back to the serial.

No snide comment: just a great villain

On the malcontent side, we have screen veteran Lionel Atwill as Dr. Maldor aka The Scarab. Atwill terrorized Fay Wray onscreen and played opposite Erol Flynn in the 1930s but found himself relegated to serials and B movies towards the end of his career. But like fellow villain Bela Lugosi, Atwill was professional enough to give it his best and is just menacing enough to be fun. Serial regulars George J. Lewis and Jon Davidson are his henchmen. They were always worth watching in these things and this is no exception.

A few other character actors pop up during the course of the serial. Serial regulars like Kenne Duncan, Tom London, LeRoy Mason, and Stanley Price do their customary one chapter and done appearances. John Hamilton, Perry White on the George Reeves Superman TV show, is one of Maldor's victims. Also on Maldor's hit list was Hugh Sothern from the serial The Fighting Devil Dogs. But the best supporting part belongs to Edward Van Sloan, best remembered today as Van Helsing in the 1931 Dracula. Here he's a scientist demonstrating a thermodynamic vibration machine or the Dynamic Vibrator for short. This leads to what may be the greatest line in serial history when Gail says "Mr. Merit and Mr. Norton are here to witness your demonstration of the vibrator."

For you prudish people thinking "it's a shame he felt the need to write that", let this be a lesson to you. This is what happens when you apply present-mindedness to 1940s serials. On the other hand, some of you are gonna howl when you think about that line.

"Dr. Scarab I presume?"

In fairness, the Dynamic Vibrator wasn't the only machine in the serial. The serial also gives us such devices as an Electronic Firebolt, a gas that can make someone look like a 3,000 year old mummy, and a device that can--and is--used to raise a dead man. That the dead man turns out to be the head henchman is unfortunate for the heroes, but not for us.

Captain America was Republic's most expensive serial. It came out the same year as Haunted Harbor, Zorro's Black Whip, and The Tiger Woman. As such, it was one of the last of the all original cliffhangers serials. That alone, as well as being technically the first Marvel adaptation. It's also the only Captain America worth watching until the recent trilogy with Chris Evans. It's directed with typical gusto by William Witney's old serial directing partner, John English. English had proven he could do serials on his own quite nicely the year before with Daredevils of the West. This time he gets a bit of an assist from Elmer Clifton, who in the 1930s had directed what is arguably the best of the 3 Stage and Screen Serials released by the Weiss Brothers. That, by the way, says nothing considering the other two were The Clutching Hand and The Black Coin.

"Nope. No War here"

It does seem strange to see a serial about Captain America released in 1944 and not see him doing what he was known for at the time: punching Nazis. Then again, Republic seemed to have decided to stop fighting the war in 1943 as none of their serials from 44 or 45 even make mention of World War II. Columbia and Universal, on the other hand, fought the war right up to the bitter end.

Other bloggers have commented that they are surprised serial fans actually like this. I'm not. Most serial fans, especially the ones who rabidly attest that only Republic made good ones, are willing to take most of these things as they get them. They especially recognize that it does little good to rage against Republic for their lack of fidelity to the comics since that was just what the company did. Maybe in another universe or dimension Republic put out faithful adaptations of comic books with Dick Tracy as a cop battling Big Boy Caprice and rescuing Tess Trueheart and Captain America and a 10 year old Bucky punching Adolf Hitler in the face. But not in our universe. We can choose to accept it or give ourselves coronaries at what we're watching.

I choose to accept it. This is an entertaining serial even if it doesn't have anything to do with Captain America. If you can get past that lack of fidelity, you too may find yourselves enjoying it. Lorna Gray and the villains make it worth spending a rainy Saturday afternoon watching it. There are better adaptations of these characters after all. If I want to watch the real Captain America, I'll slip in one of the MCU movies. But if I want to spend a few hours with fun and familiar character actors, henchmen coming back from the dead, and Dynamic Vibrators, I'll pop this one in.

Captain America: Civil War

2016 may go down in cinematic history as the year superheroes stopped punching bad guys and started punching each other. Captain America: Civil War is the second and better of these movies, if only because it's the more personal.

After an attempt to stop Brock Rumlow in Nigeria ends with collateral damage the United Nations wants to put The Avengers under their rule. Tony Stark aka Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) is all for it but Steve Rogers aka Captain America (Chris Evans) wants to stay independent. Battle lines are drawn and sides are chosen over the proposed Sokovia Accords. Things get worse when Steve's friend turned brainwashed assassin Bucky Barnes is accused of bombing the signing of the Accords, killing the King of Wakanda. The King's son, T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), under the guise of Black Panther, wants revenge. Stark wants to put Bucky down. Steve wants to help his friend clear his name. This set up drives the rest of the film.

Yes, there's a lot more of the Avengers in the movie. In fact, this is basically Avengers 3 more than Captain America 3. On Team Iron Man is Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Vision (Paul Bettany), War Machine (Don't Cheadle), Black Panther, and--making his Marvel Cinematic Universe debut--Spider-Man (Tom Holland). Team Captain America has Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), Bucky, and Ant-Man (Paul Rudd).

One would think that with that many characters and a 2 1/2 hour running time, the movie would be too much and too bloated. Surprisingly, it's not. It's multitude of characters and storylines doesn't overwhelm it or feel forced. It's not like some of the more unfortunate DC attempts of "oh, look...it's (insert Batman villain)! Oh, look! It's (insert Justice League hero #1)! Oh, look, it's grainy video of (insert Justice League hero #2)." It's not even like the Marvel Netflix shows that attempt to convince you they're part of the same MCU as the movies by vaguely name-dropping a character without actually mentioning them by name. It remains a slick, taut thriller that manages to pull its various storylines together cohesively in the end. It all clicks and clicks wonderfully, especially under the direction of Joe and Anthony Russo, the directors of Winter Soldier.

About that ending. No spoilers but this movie duplicates the feat of last year's Ant-Man. There's no apocalyptic situation, no extinction level event going on. The fate of the entire world and life as we know it isn't hanging in the balance. There's no wanton destruction with possibly thousands of unseen lives lost. What there is a simple but brutal fight between former friends. To say that it's as tense if not more so than the finales of almost all the previous Marvel movies is to undersell it. Oh, sure, there's a big superhero on superhero brawl earlier in the film where all the heroes fight each other. But that's not the finale. That's the scene we expected when we came in. The finale is much more personal. You don't root for a winner in these fights. We like all these characters and just don't want to see anything bad happen to any of them.

That may be the secret power of this movie. We have been invested in these characters since the MCU started with Iron Man in 2008. The result is that we like all of these characters. Civil War not only recognizes that fact, it exploits it. The movie never demonizes any of its heroes. We can get behind any one of them at any given time. Most iconic brawl movies clearly delineate who we should ultimately root for in the movie. When you have Ant-Man on one team and Spider-Man on the other, how in the world do you choose who to root for?

On the topic of Spider-Man, Tom Holland has the promise to be the best screen webhead yet. The youngest actor to play Peter Parker and his alter-ego, Holland actually looks like a nerdy high school teenager. He also brings Spidey's banter to life in a hilarious way that neither Tobey Maguire nor Andrew Garfield pulled off. It actually makes one excited to see Spidey's next movie. As for this movie's other major introduction, I never was that interested in the character of Black Panther until this. But like Holland's Spider-Man, Boseman's Black Panther is a fascinating character. Since this movie is almost an origin story, I really want to see where the character goes next.

Some may say this isn't quite as good as The Winter Soldier. If that's true, it's through no fault of the movie's own. It's just that Winter Soldier was just that great. But it's almost like arguing whether The Godfather or The Godfather Part II is a better movie. It's still an amazing movie that has much to say about loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and the cost of revenge.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

The end of 2011's Captain America: The First Avenger found the WWII era superhero in the modern world. This first sequel picks up on that thread, highlighting the differences between the world Captain America left behind and the modern world.

Chris Evans returns as Steve Rogers, now working for S.H.I.E.L.D. and becoming greatly disillusioned with it. When he finds Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) downloading files for Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson in one of those few movies where he doesn't say MF) during what was supposed to be a rescue mission, he confronts Fury about his lies. Fury tells Rogers about a new S.H.I.E.L.D. initiative known as Project Insight: three new Helicarriers designed and programmed to eliminate America's enemies before they can do any harm. This, needless to say, doesn't sit well with Rogers.

When Fury can't access the files, he visits Defense Secretary Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford). Not long after, he's attacked twice: first in the streets then later in Steve's apartment. After Fury seemingly dies, Pierce and S.H.I.E.L.D. turn on Cap, making him a fugitive. With war veteran Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) and Black Widow as his only allies,  Cap investigates Fury's murder and makes the disturbing discovery that old nemesis HYDRA had secretly taken over S.H.I.E.L.D. over the decades and were planning to use Project Insight to eliminate their enemies. Worse yet, their number one assassin--the infamous Winter Soldier--is Steve's best friend, the long presumed dead Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), now brainwashed and with a cybernetic arm.

Evans cements his place in comic book movie history as the definitive version of this character. His Rogers is a character whose values have not kept up with the world around him. We're living in a post-9/11 world where in some ways we've forsaken freedom for security. The movie replaces 9/11 with the end battle from 2012's The Avengers but the parallel between what happened in the years following is not lost. Rogers is a character who has gone from living in a world with easily defined bad guys to a world where the distinction is harder to make. Evans does not fail the character, making him moral enough to stand against Project Insight even before we learn its a tool of HYDRA's but conflicted about fighting his former friend.

He also has a great chemistry with Johansson's Black Widow. In fact, this may be the best of her appearances as the character. She's always been fun to watch in these but this is the most interesting she's been.

Stan is physically awesome as the Winter Soldier, a frightening and mysterious force of nature. His battles with Captain America are brutal and nasty. They're also well shot. The ability to follow the action in an era where directors favor cuts that are at best confusing in nature is a definite plus.

As for the others, they are exactly what you would expect. Anthony Mackie is an excellent update to a character who looked a little too disco. Emily Van Camp as Steve's neighbor who isn't who she seems to be at first is also a plus but could have used more screen time. And Robert Redford is Robert Redford. Does anything need to be said beside that?

If the first Captain America was a serial style WWII adventure film, The Winter Soldier is a 70s style paranoid political thriller ala The Parallax View. The only major difference between this and those films is the number of things blown up.  Directed with style by Joe and Anthony Russo, the twists and surprises in the movie elevate it above standard comic book fare. There is humor to counter the action, too. The best running joke in the movie is Widow constantly suggesting hook ups for Rogers.

You can argue if this or The First Avenger are better but at the end of the day, it's splitting hairs. The Winter Soldier is the best Marvel sequel, period. Captain America is the best Marvel franchise, period. With the Russos in charge of not only the forthcoming Civil War but the next two Avenger movies, things are looking pretty good for the MCU.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Captain America is one of those characters that's always had a bit of an interesting screen history. By interesting, I mean depressing. His first on-screen appearance was in a 1944 Republic serial, played by an actor named Dick Purcell. It's not a bad serial per-se, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Captain America. In it, he's a D.A. who wears an outfit that sort of looks like Captain America's outfit and who punches crooks out of windows without even attempting to save them. After that, there were two TV movies in the 1970s. TV movies that were so bad, even my 8 year old self didn't like them, and my 8 year old self had occasionally rotten taste in movies and TV. There was movie in the 1990s with Matt Salinger that pretty much went straight to video and which I've never really had the fortitude to try to watch. So when Marvel announced yet another crack at the character, I inwardly groaned. So imagine my delight when this not only turned out to be the best screen version of the character, but one of the best comic book movies ever.

It's 1942 and WWII is at a fever pitch. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) wants to join the fight against the Nazis but has enough medical issues to get into the Guinness Book of World Records. Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) recruits Rogers into the SSR as part of a Super Soldier experiment conducted by Erskine, Col. Chester Phillips (a hilarious Tommy Lee Jones) and British agent Peggy Carter (gorgeous Haley Atwell, who made such an impression she got her own TV show). Erskine's experiment is a success but the scientist is killed by an agent of Hydra, a Nazi offshoot run by Johann Schmidt, aka The Red Skull. Schmidt has just stolen a very dangerous artifact known as The Tessaract and is using it to build super weapons with which to conquer the world.

Rogers is demoted to selling War Bonds until Hydra captures his best friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan). He then takes it upon himself to take the fight to Hydra. Along the way, he's assisted by Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper), who's son Tony will eventually become Iron Man, and Dum Dum Dugan and his Howling Commandos.

The thing that makes this movie stand out is the fact that it's an origin story we haven't seen a million times already. It's not Superman and the destruction of Krypton. It's not Peter Parker being bit by a radioactive spider. It's not Bruce Wayne watching his parents be murdered. You can make that argument for Iron Man and Thor, I suppose, but they don't have Captain America's frustrating film history behind them. For fans waiting to see if the character would ever appear in a good movie, the answer finally became yes.

The cast, as it has been for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is top notch. Evans performance as Cap is as iconic as Christopher Reeve's Superman was. Evans, unlike many of his contemporaries, is playing a hero who actually wants to be a hero. He isn't mopey, brooding, or nuts. In an age when even Superman can be moody, it's kinda refreshing to see a straight out good guy.

Hugo Weaving may not have liked his experience with the MCU playing the Red Skull but he's just behind Tom Hiddleston and James Spader as Marvel villains go. Assistant Armin Zola (Toby Jones) would return in other MCU properties, including the aforementioned Agent Carter.

Perhaps the best thing about the movie is that it's period appropriate. It's easy to forget that many of the iconic comic book characters started in the 30s and 40s. As a result, they don't always translate down the line. The Green Hornet is one of the better examples of a period specific character who doesn't do as well later on. Captain America was a product of WWII. His first comic book cover had him punching Hitler in the face. So it's great that this movie recognized that and went with it. Sure, due to The Avengers, they had to find a way to get him into the modern world, but by not modernising the origin, director Joe Johnson and Marvel gave us something fresh, fun, and different.

Sequels, Remakes, and Reboots Part III: Sequels

Of the three things being discussed in this series, sequels are generally speaking the hardest to come to a vague defense of.  And yet, they've been around for decades to say nothing of centuries. The biggest argument against them is that they seem to be nothing more than a money grab. But, truth to tell, one can say that of almost any commercial endeavor, especially in regards to movies. Movies are a business, after all, something most people forget.

While we like to think of sequels as being of relatively recent vintage, they really aren't. They stretch back to at least the 1910s. But back then, nobody just numbered the films. One of the early examples of a sequel comes, fittingly enough, from the serial format. The first serial was done in 1912, called What Happened to Mary?. It was a success--as well as being one of the early movie tie-ins where a novelization was done in serial format in the newspapers--and inspired a second serial called Who Will Marry Mary?. Admittedly, neither one of those sounds like an edge of your seat cliffhanger, but then again, it took a couple of years for the serial format to really develop into that. That wasn't the only serial from the era to gain a sequel. 1916's Pearl White thriller The Exploits of Elaine got one called The Romance of Elaine.

Of course, I'm just speaking cinematically. You can take it back a lot farther than 1913. In fact, you can take the numbered sequel routine back to a guy whose name may or may not have actually been William Shakespeare. Seems he did a few Part 1 and Part 2 type plays back in the day. In fact, you can take it father back than that to the Greeks, with the Thebes plays by Sophocles and The Illiad and The Odyssey. "Yes, but those are classics" you may be saying. They're classics now, but they were pop entertainment--in particular Shakespeare's work--in their day.

Sequels proliferated in novel format once the printing press was invented. Accordingly, a number of said sequels were essentially repeats of the novel that preceded them. Sound familiar? This was done mostly to assert the author's ownership over the properties.

The point is, this sort of thing has literally gone on for centuries and isn't likely to change any time soon.

Up until about the 1970s, however, sequels--or at least movie sequels--tried to tell somewhat different stories and have completely different titles. The sequel to the 1931 Frankenstein wasn't called Frankenstein 2, it was called The Bride of Frankenstein. While some of the nuts and bolts of the story were similar, it also wasn't a direct repeat of the first movie, either. Not even serials told the same exact story or numbered their sequels.

There were a couple of examples of sequels being numbered prior to the 1970s--Quatermass 2 from 1957 being possibly the earliest example--but starting in that decade, the floodgates started to open. While both The Godfather Part II and The French Connection II were both considered better than their respective first movies, they also seemed to help get the trend of numbering started. The Exorcist II, Rocky II and Jaws 2 followed by the end of the decade. Then came the 1980s.

For reasons that film historians will be debating 100 years from now, if they're not already debating it, the sequel concept really caught fire in the 80s. It mostly seems to have started off with the slasher film. 1981 brought us both Halloween II and Friday the 13th Part 2, both of which were just sucessful enough for the studios to ensure that we'd be spending much of the decade watching their spawn. Sequel after sequel to those and other horror franchises followed and so long as they made a profit, they kept getting made. Comedies--most notably raunchy juvenile comedies like Porky's and Meatballs started getting in on the act as did action movies. The single biggest problem with a large number of these is the fact that they really did simply repeat the first movie--and nowhere near as well. I enjoyed the first two Police Academy films when I was a teenager but quickly abandoned the series after the third film when I realized that not only did it suck, but it simply repeated all the jokes in the first two. Mind you, this is coming from someone who didn't always have the greatest of taste in movies when he was a teenager.

The trend was so bad by 1983 that Siskel and Ebert's "Worst of the Year" show for that year was dedicated to nothing but sequels. I have to admit, there were some pretty wretched sequels unleashed on the public that year. They highlighted such rotten sequels as The Sting II, Staying Alive--the sequel to Saturday Night Fever and the only film on the list of sequels to not have a number--, Smokey and the Bandit 3, Jaws 3-D (which I kinda like even though it is a bad movie), and Amityville 3-D. At the end of the show, they implored audiences to not watch any sequels unless they said so.

I will be fair to the 80s, however. There were some sequels that were very good in that decade, mostly in the science fiction genre. I'm not sure what it is about science fiction, but the sequels to sci-fi movies are rarely dumb repeats. The Star Wars and Star Trek sequels are all fairly decent. Even the "bad" entries in those series are better than most comedy and slasher sequels. I'm sorry, but I'd rather watch the much hated Star Trek V: The Final Frontier than the same numbered Nightmare on Elm Street or Police Academy movies. None of the 80s Indiana Jones movies--even the much maligned Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom--are bad movies either. Continuing with the sci-fi theme, Aliens was also an excellent sequel. We just won't talk about the 90s Alien movies.

Part of the problem, which again goes back to the 70s, is that following the law of diminishing returns, sequels got lower and lower budgets as the series went on. The original Planet of the Apes series is a prime example of this. The excellent make up jobs on all of the apes in the first film gave way to bad Halloween masks in later entries. The diminishing budgets may not be as evident in comedies like the Revenge of the Nerds series, but it comes up front and center in an effects heavy series like Superman. The budget and effects for the notorious Supergirl and Superman IV were so bad that they killed the series until the 2000s.

Lately, however, that doesn't necessarily follow. Movies are trying to put more money into the sequel, to make it bigger and more spectacular than the film that came before. Sometimes that pays off. A fairly surprising source of good sequels nowadays seems to be in the comic book genre. With the exceptions of a few notable missteps like X-Men III--a movie I truly regret seeing--the comic book genre has really stepped up. The latest Thor and Iron Man movies were, if not better than their predecessors, at least as good as. Spider-Man 2 and X2 were also better sequels. Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy got better as it went along.  In the coming months we'll have sequels to both Captain America and X-Men that both look like they should be good. Again, like Sci-Fi movies, the thing that these newer comic book movies have going for them is their ability to tell different stories in each film. That helps make the movies at least seem fresher, or at the very least, not make us think "didn't we see this story already?".

Of course, there's a lot of other sequels coming this summer and even more in 2015. The thing is, some of them will be good. They certainly have the capacity and lately haven't been too bad at it. Well, except for comedy sequels. They still haven't figured out that idea. Other sequels--like the forthcoming Dolphin Tail 2--will make us wonder why in God's name a sequel was necessary. Others still just may make us hate humanity for their existence.

So, at the end of the day, should you listen to Siskel & Ebert's advice from 30 years ago? No sequels unless directly told otherwise. Not necessarily. I still watch sequels and in a few weeks will be happily dropping money to see the second Captain America. I'm fairly sure it will make a mint, too. So long as sequels make money, sequels get made no matter how good, bad, or indifferent. That's the way it's always been, that's the way it is, and that's the way it's always going to be.

3-D Thursday: Marvel's The Avengers (2012)

In terms of great comic book movies, it can be argued that the genre didn't really find it's legs until the early 2000s with Bryan Singer's X-Men and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. Some have argued as far back as Tim Burton's Batman, but Burton's Batman, like Richard Donner's Superman (1978) was more of an anomaly then a standard bearer. Actually, I tend to think that comic book movies didn't truly hit their stride until 2008's Iron Man, which started the great run up to what is probably the genre's best film ever: 2012's spectacular Marvel's The Avengers (the actual onscreen title, by the way).

The Avengers is a crossover movie with the heroes and/or supporting characters of five previous Marvel movies. The loose umbrella of films that came previously became known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Nothing like it had ever been attempted in the movies before. Surprisingly, despite the risky endeavor, the film works beautifully.

Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, and the Incredible Hulk--or more specifically Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, and Bruce Banner--are called upon when Loki, brother of Thor, steals the Tesseract, a mystical cube he intends to use to conquer the world. Loki has also taken over the minds of Dr. Erik Selvig, who he plans to use to help him harness the power of the Tesseract, and a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent named Clint Barton, code name Hawkeye, who he plans to basically use as an assassin.  Thor joins in when Loki is captured to try to make him give up the cube. But as Nick Fury points out, Loki seems to be the only person who wants to be on the Shield Heli-carrier.

The problem with comic book movies in general is that so few people know how to make a good one. Too often have comic book movies gone for camp or at least what they think is camp, such as the dreck that mostly made up 90s comic book movies, or else they tend to just be about explosions and fights like X-Men III: The Final Stand. Amazingly, Richard Donner laid out the blueprint for how to do it right in 1978, but too many people have missed that blue print. Luckily, Joss Whedon wasn't one of those people.


Donner taught these movies how to have a sense of humor but also a genuine sense of menace and Whedon improves on that idea with The Avengers. Yes, there's some funny bits in the film, but Loki and the Chitari are not jokes, even if Loki makes a couple of wisecracks himself. If Tom Hiddleston's Loki isn't the best comic book villain of all time, he's in the top three for certain. Maybe Heath Ledger's Joker and Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor edge him out, but it's pretty close.

This is Robert Downey Jr.'s fifth appearance as Tony Stark/Iron Man, while everyone else except Mark Ruffalo as Banner is on their second appearance. Downey has made Stark his own and turned a character not many people cared/knew about before his movies into a major player. Chris Hemsworth likewise is the living embodiment of Thor. Ruffalo becomes the third actor in the past decade to take on playing the Hulk and while I really liked Edward Norton in the role, Ruffalo is easily the best. Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow shows she can play with the big boys and surprisingly doesn't look ridiculous doing it. Chris Evans is the best actor to ever play Captain America and I frankly can't wait for Captain America: The Winter Soldier in a couple of months. Samuel L. Jackson and Clark Gregg do their usual bits as Nick Fury and Agent Coulson. Actually, Gregg has been the glue through most of these movies as the only two he doesn't show up in prior to this are 2008's The Incredible Hulk and 2011's Captain America: The First Avenger. He's a fan favorite and gets one of the best scenes in the movie when he squares off against Loki. Although the funniest scene in the movie is still Hulk meets Loki.

Whedon's film also improves on the idea of a comic book team up movie. If you really look at prior films like the X-Men, most of the movie relies on a couple members of the team, with the rest basically the useless army. The Avengers, however, gives every major player something to do and not just once in the movie. The movie treats every major hero equally, giving them all bits of business, good lines, and heroic things to accomplish. The same can be said of the actors playing those characters. The only one who tries upstaging the others is Hiddleston, and well, he's the villain with a flair for the theatrical.


As far as the 3D goes, it's a conversion from 2D. It happens to be one of the best conversions, but it's still a conversion and as such is bound to fail when compared to movies shot in Native 3D. The conversion manages to eek out some decent depth, but the pop-outs would have looked far more impressive had the movie been shot that way. Unfortunately, this is a situation that is not about to change with Marvel movies.


Is Marvel's The Avengers the best comic book movie ever? I think it just might be. Every so often a movie comes along with a sense of "wow" to it that just captures the imagination. This is one of those movies. I've already seen it half a dozen times. I try not to rewatch movies too often in order to keep them fresh but I find myself wanting to toss this in every few months. It's a great film with the right balance of story, humor, and action to please any movie buff.

Thor: The Dark World

When Thor came out in 2011, my interest in seeing it was only slightly more than my interest in seeing a torture horror movie, which is to say practically non-existent. However, I had heard some good things about it and when it hit Redbox, I plunked down a dollar to rent it. After watching it, I immediately felt stupid for having not seen it in the theater. A wonderful mix of superhero goofiness and Shakespearean intrigue, Thor worked far better than I expected. So naturally I determined early on not to let it's sequel get away from me.

While most sequels fail to live up to their predecessors, Thor: The Dark World comes from the rare breed of sequel that is actually better than it's first entry. This is especially surprising when you consider that, outside of The Avengers 2, known of the Phase One directors are coming back to direct Phase Two movies. What this means for the second entry in the Thor series is that Kenneth Branagh isn't guiding this one. That actually translates to less Palace Intrigue and more Big Fights, but surprisingly, this doesn't work against the movie like it should.

The film opens, as it's predecessor did, with the Asgardians defeating a powerful enemy, this time the Dark Elves, led by Malaketh. Doctor Who fans will take glee in seeing Ninth Doctor Christopher Eccleston as Malaketh, who aspires to send the Nine Realms back into darkness using a weapon called the Aether. Malaketh escapes from Odin's father and the Aether is hidden from him by the Asgardians. Eventually, the Aether is found by Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and Malaketh and his minions rise up to reclaim it and finish the job of sending the Nine Realms back into darkness. Naturally, it is up to Thor (Chris Hemsworth) to put an end to all of this.

I realized as I wrote the above summary that some of this sounds an awful lot like Lord of the Rings and maybe it does. Despite that, it's not something you think about as you actually watch the movie. Thor: The Dark World moves at a pretty good clip and is filled with some great one-liners. It brings back all of the major players of the first film, from Anthony Hopkins and Renee Russo as Thor's parents Odin and Frigia to Stellan Skaarsgard and Kat Dennings as Portman's sorta scientific colleagues Dr. Erik Selvig and Darcy, all of whom put in exactly the type of performance one would except of these actors. In fact, the only major player from the first film not in this is Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson, and that's because he's on TV right now. Though I would love to see him and the Agents of SHIELD team pop up in one of these films.

And then there's Loki.

Tom Hiddleston's Loki was the high point of the first film and, in many ways, of The Avengers as well. Point in fact, he's the best villain in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and probably a top ten--maybe even top five--movie villain period. This time Hiddleston gets to put a little more depth to Loki, playing him as more of a shade of grey than previously. Throughout the movie, the audience is never fully sure who's side Loki is on, and it makes for fascinating viewing. It also helps that he gets many of the best lines, too. The scene where he disguises himself as Captain America is a riot. No one in the movie can match him--not Eccleston, not Hemsworth, not Portman, not even Hopkins. How often can you say that? Hiddleston completely walks away with the movie, leaving the audience wanting more.

It is a given that The Avengers is the best movie in the MCU. Hower, Thor: The Dark World, while not quite as good, is not far behind. I admit to being concerned that the Phase Two movies would be major letdowns after what came before them, but so far, I'm loving what I'm seeing. Iron Man 3 had only a couple of minor missteps while this particular film does everything right. I'm looking forward to Captain America: The Winter Soldier now. My only regret was not seeing this in 3D last night, but that was on the theater. I'll gladly see Thor: The Dark World a second time. It's a movie well worth seeing, especially on the big screen.