Triple Review: Three Stooges, The Dictator, Men in Black 3

       As far as film criticism goes, it's not easy to review the comedy genre. Everyone has different tastes when it comes to comedy. Some prefer their comedy films to have actual characters, with the humor deriving from the bizarre situations they end up in. Some like films that have next to no character development and thrive off of gross out humor. When I think of some of the best comedy films of all time, films like "Animal House", "Ghostbusters", "Dr. Strangeglove", "Airplane", "The Blues Brothers", "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", and "Blazing Saddles" immediately spring to mind. While I wouldn't consider them comedy classics, I also get a kick out of some modern day comedy films, such as the "Austin Powers" trilogy, "The Hangover", "Tropic Thunder", "Zombieland", and "Anchorman". These films, to me, represent my own taste in comedy.

       While I consider myself an analytical film reviewer with very specific tastes depending on the genre, I guess my only real prerequisite for a comedy film is if it makes me laugh. It doesn't have to make me laugh out loud, per se, but it should be funny enough to consistently make me laugh. A film with only a couple of good jokes doesn't entertain me as much as one that gets me laughing and smiling throughout its entire run time. Since comedy is always left to the viewer, I consider it inherently wrong to review a comedy film as if it's Oscar worthy material.

        Now true, if a film's humor is entirely built around gross out jokes and celebrity gags (cough cough the Parody Movies cough cough) then that doesn't fly with me, but I can forgive a film if it succeeds in making me laugh without also making me feel stupid. And even then, I have my moments of weakness where I laugh knowing full well that what I'm seeing is idiotic. So, with all that said, I found myself over the last two months watching three distinct comedy films in theaters, one a couple of weeks ago and two very recently. With my own thoughts on what I view as a decent comedy film out of the way, how would I then classify "The Three Stooges", "The Dictator", and "Men in Black 3"?

         I'm going to be frank when I say I never grew up watching the Three Stooges. Maybe I'm the victim of a very sheltered life, but I never got into them. Years later I saw old reruns on TV, and I did laugh at their wily shenanigans, but I can't rightly say that going into this movie I felt a sense of nostalgia, the way my friend did when he asked me to go see it with him. But, suffice to say, this cinematic adaptation of the classic shorts has a lot of love and respect for its source material. The three actors they got to portray the stooges do a wonderful job of channeling the performances of their predecessors. After adding their costumes, they are dead ringers for the stooges of old. The film is even set up in a three act structure the same way the old shorts were.

        However, despite the multiple homages to the classic Stooges, the film ultimately plays more like a tribute that tries to be funny rather than actually being funny. The slapstick gags get old after a while, and only a few of them are ever truly inspired. While yes, it did make me laugh, I would consider this more of a love letter to fans of the Stooges than a solid comedy film that tries to attract new viewers. Somehow I don't think a modern day audience would perceive the Stooges' slapstick as funny, even though their routine was an inspiration to comedians everywhere back in the day. Overall, this was a great homage to the old Three Stooges that unfortunately is an average comedy flick with hit or miss jokes. Still, any Stooges fan should check it out if they did grow up watching the original shorts, if only for the nostalgia.

          The next film, "The Dictator", is the latest film from Sacha Baren Cohen, the man behind "Borat" and "Bruno". Truth be told, I've never seen either of those films, but I am told that "Borat" is hilarious while "Bruno" falls flat. Maybe it's better that I haven't seen those movies, because it allows me to view "The Dictator" on its own without comparing it to Cohen's other characters. What I can say about this film is that, at least in my opinion, it's a pretty damn good comedy, even if a lot of the jokes are wildly offensive to women, various ethnic groups, Middle Eastern countries, and various governments.

          A film like this could not have been made ten years ago, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Only now is it acceptable to make a film that completely parodies the life of a Middle Eastern dictator. For what it's worth, Cohen makes it work. His character, General Aladeen, comes off as your stereotypical madman with a sympathetic side, which is made more apparent when he's stripped of his power and becomes a commoner in America. Some of the jokes don't make much sense, but they are still funny, some even downright hilarious. I wouldn't go calling it a masterful comedy, as even the obvious socio-political commentary is handled pretty weakly, but it's still a fun watch, and definitely worth a rental.

          Now comes the film I had my most recent outing at the theater with, one that I have been looking forward to for ten years without even realizing it. Unlike the last two films, I definitely have a history with this one. "Men in Black 3" was a sequel I thought would never happen. I was ten years old when I saw the first two "Men in Black" films, and at the time I found them both hilarious (even if the second one has soured in my mind with the years). Before I go anywhere else, yes, I realize that these films do cross over into the action/sci-fi genres, but at their heart, the Men in Black films are definitely comedies. People don't just go to see agents blowing up aliens; they go to see Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones blow up aliens, all the while riffing on each other. It's a comedy duo that works to perfection, and even at their lowest point in MIB II, Smith and Jones create a comedic chemistry that can't be ignored.
       
         So, what of the new film? Long story short, MIB III is both hilarious and at the same time charming and emotional, a better follow up than MIB II that is a notch below the first but is still effective as both a sci-fi and as a comedy. I was at first weary when the film was announced as having a time travel plot, along with the revelation that Tommy Lee Jones was going to be replaced for the majority of the film with a younger version played by Josh Brolin. Luckily, Brolin's Jones impression is so utterly perfect that I honestly thought that the filmmakers just de-aged Jones with computer effects. That's how seamlessly Brolin fits into his role. When the Smith/Jones shtick started to get old in MIB II, this film made it come alive again. It has a great set-up with a scary new villain, Boris the Animal, escaping from prison to kill Agent K in the past so his actions won't prevent Boris's race from invading Earth. While this is happening, Smith's Agent J is lamenting how cold and indifferent his partner has become, which not only shows how important K is to J but also provides a great contrast once we meet the younger K of the '60s.

        The time travel plot is handled a lot more intelligently than I previously believed. While there are several points where the characters' actions would open up a whole can of paradoxes, a lot of these threads are resolved by the introduction of Griffin, a hyper dimensional alien who can perceive multiple timelines at once. Through him, we learn of the different timelines that converge and are made possible through time travel, ones in which Agent K both lives and dies. Not only is this a clever way to introduce the confusing concept of time paradoxes, but Griffin himself is a hilarious character that heightens the comedic aspect of the film. He has a loving innocence to him, but talks extremely fast and is constantly worried over which possible futures will end up happening.

        Will Smith, I have to say, is better than ever as Agent J. He fits back into the role he played ten years previously like a glove, and bounces off Brolin just as well as he does Jones. Seeing the two together provides some great comedy. Of special note is J's reaction to both the altered present and the '60s environment, as he begins freaking out about the situation in a way only Will Smith can do. Jemaine Clement's Boris character comes off as a convincing threat, with an awesome character design (his entire body is made of tiny claws that can open up and fire bony spikes at people). A scene where he interacts with his younger self is legitimately terrifying, but also hilarious in that they have a kind of rivalry going on (the younger Boris refuses to believe that he will make the same mistakes as his future self, and the older Boris reprimands him for it). But, what I really like about this film, as both a sci-fi and as a comedy, is the '60s setting.

        This is where I'm legitimately glad the filmmakers went with the time travel plot, other than to see J interacting with young K. The entire MIB franchise is given a new sense of life through the '60s nostalgia. The MIB headquarters is vastly different; female agents sit at typewriters, neuralyzers and jet packs are giant hulking machines that take up vast amounts of power, and the aliens have wackier designs to reflect the retro '60s B-movie look. It's a very fun world to play around in, and seeing the filmmakers make jabs at '60s culture is a real treat. While I'm not sure if the Men in Black needed a third installment, especially one focused on time travel, I was pleasantly surprised at how good this turned out. While it does still suffer from plot holes due to paradoxes, this is something inherent in all time travel films. The ending has a surprise twist that adds a bit of emotion to the film, one which deepens the friendship between J and K and makes their characters better for it. Ultimately, I had a great time at the theater watching this film and laughed at the jokes throughout, so I would definitely say MIB 3's role as an effective comedy film has been fulfilled.

        "Three Stooges", "The Dictator", and "Men in Black 3" all have their ups and downs as far as comedies go, but I still had a fun time watching all three of them, some more than others. Men in Black was by far my favorite out of these three, not so much because of the nostalgia factor but because it had a better understanding of when to balance its characters and story with jokes that were actually funny. Dictator's jokes were more gross out gags that tried to be relevant by adding a socio-political context, and Three Stooges was pure slapstick that was banking on the nostalgia factor of its source. While films like that do have their place, and I did enjoy both of them to varying degrees for what they were, MIB 3 worked better as a comedy for me for the reasons I stated above. Not only do I like comedy films that make me laugh throughout, I like it when they make an attempt to build a story and unique characters into the narrative, so the humor is more meaningful when I care about the characters and the situations they end up in. Seeing these three films in theaters has helped me reflect on that, and made it more apparent now that I have actually reviewed them.
   

Avengers/Dark Knight: A Comparison

   
          I'm not gonna lie: the second time in, The Avengers is still as awesome as the first time I saw it. I've already analyzed the film in my last review, but after seeing it again with my family and friends, I began thinking more about how I would rate the film in terms of the entire superhero genre. I seriously considered calling it my favorite superhero movie, surpassing even The Dark Knight. I know I'm not alone in this assumption, as it seems the Internet has erupted with nothing but praise for Avengers. So I started thinking to myself: is Avengers or Dark Knight the superior film? Which one has made a greater contribution to the superhero genre?

          After seeing Avengers, my gut reaction would be to go with that film, but then I have to keep in mind that it was through the Marvel characters that I got into comic books in the first place. In a Marvel/DC battle, I always go with Marvel, just because I relate more with the characters and find them much more interesting. But DC has proven that it has characters that are just as interesting as Marvel's, Batman especially. For the longest time, I called The Dark Knight my favorite comic book film, even though Marvel characters like Spider-Man ranked higher on my personal list of favorite superheroes. I was so relieved to see in Avengers a film that could challenge Dark Knight for supremacy, and a Marvel film no less. So while seeing Avengers twice has reaffirmed that I still feel the same way about the movie, I have to ask if calling Avengers better than Dark Knight is jumping the gun, or is is legitimately better?

          The Dark Knight is a dark, gritty, realistic take on the comic book genre that not only provides genuine thrills, but makes the audience contemplate what it means to be good or evil. The film acts as a metaphor for post-911 America, in that it analyzes how far men will go to bring down terrorism and whether they could lose themselves in the process. Two-Face is a perfect example of this, while Batman is a man who sticks by his morals even when the world is going to hell around him. The Joker is an absolute: he is chaos personified, the ultimate evil who exists solely to prove that men at heart are just as corrupt as he is. Through the symbolism provided by the three main characters, it is obvious that Dark Knight deals with some pretty serious stuff. It's not just an action-packed blockbuster. It's a cautionary tale about our society, a film that transcends its comic book roots to convey the feel of a modern crime drama. In more ways then one, The Dark Knight is very impressive. There is no point in denying the massive achievement that this film accomplished, in that it showed the world that stories taken from comic books don't always have to be childish entertainment, but serious material that leaves an impression on you once you leave the theater.

          The question is, compared to The Dark Knight, what has Avengers accomplished? How has Avengers changed the game and redefined the superhero genre? In a lot of ways, Avengers is just as big of an accomplishment as Dark Knight and is certainly a game changer, but for very different reasons. In terms of plot, Avengers doesn't aim nearly as high. It's a straightforward superhero flick. Villain with a god complex tries to take over the world, superheroes have to stop him. There's fighting among the heroes, they learn to get along, stop the villain, and the day is saved. The end. Simple, except what Avengers lacks in a complex plot it makes up for in scope, scale, and character interaction, not to mention entertainment value.

          The great thing about the Avengers is seeing not one, not two, but six different superheroes play off each other. The dialogue between them sparkles, both when they're fighting and when they're assembling. The action is nothing short of breathtaking. And, best of all, the very nature of the film brings out the full potential of the superhero genre. Finally, a film has come along that takes full advantage of what has been commonplace in comics for years but has never been conveyed on screen until now: crossovers. Since Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, and Jack Kirby created the characters in the '60s, Marvel has been an ever expanding universe filled with characters who would always cross paths with each other. Due to licensing issues with different studios, we never got a chance to see those interactions that made the universe seem more lived in until now. Not only is it possible, Joss Whedon has shown us that it can be done well. His knack for solid writing and character development ensured that these heroes wouldn't be thrown together half heartedly; they would come together as organically as possible.

          Did I mention how fun it is? I've said it plenty of times before and I'll say it again: it is the action and the comedy that makes this film work. I don't care if the plot has been seen dozens of times before: the sight of six superheroes bouncing off each other before coming together was what made the film unique. This film was a gamble for Marvel, in that they had to introduce B-list characters into their own films and build up hype over four years just to make people care. But they do. The gamble worked. Now Marvel has a fully realized cinematic universe on their hands which is still growing. They have the potential to take their next films anywhere they want. They can go cosmic, they can do magic, they can continue exploring advanced science or espionage or politics. The possibilities are endless. Finally, common audiences are seeing the potential of the comic book genre, something that to them is a possibility now but to comic fans has simply been a fact since the birth of the medium.

         After saying all of this, it would seem obvious that Avengers takes the cake over Dark Knight. To reiterate, Avengers shows the potential for comic book films to be interconnected and create a shared universe that is limitless in scale, one that provides a tempting sandbox for directors to play around in and tell fun, exciting romps that entertain audiences of all ages. But going back to Batman, The Dark Knight showed the potential for comic book films to be taken seriously, not just as blockbuster entertainment but as heavy, psychological dramas that reveal hidden truths about our society.

           As a fan of comic books, I can say that the genre is defined by both of these ideologies: the desire to have fun, and the desire to want something with more substance. The fact of the matter is, if comics were all about revealing something about our society, they would be too dark and grim. Yes, they would be critically praised for their intelligence, but if every comic did that, they wouldn't be very fun to read and no one would buy them. On the flip side, comic books, and superheroes especially, are meant to act as escapism. People want to read about larger than life characters that go on death defying adventures, who save the day, get the girl, and go home happy. But if all comics were just pure entertainment, readers would get bored and would clamor for something a little more meatier. Films work the same way, both cinema in general and the recent trend of adapting comic books to film.

            Since The Dark Knight came out, it seems the current trend in Hollywood is to make everything dark and gritty in order to come off as grounded and realistic. In order to get an audience, films have to be more reality-based. For the past few years, this would make a compelling argument. But when a film that has an armored billionaire, a time lost super soldier, a giant green monster, and a thunder god go up against an army of inter-dimensional aliens becomes the biggest opening for a film in history, there is now proof that not all films have to be dark and gritty to be successful. As long as it's done well, people will suspend their disbelief and enjoy a 2 hour superhero team up. We know now that it's successful. In other words, the two different potentials of the comic book genre that have worked so well on the printed page for more than 50 years now work equally well on film.

            In terms of potential, Avengers and Dark Knight are equals, but they are opposite sides of the same coin. Dark Knight is dark, serious, and realistic while Avengers is light, funny, and fantastic. Both are good, but for entirely different reasons. To compare them and their contributions to the superhero genre would be like comparing Star Wars to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both are very well done films that made huge contributions to the science fiction genre, but where one is a fun, light-hearted, simple action/adventure film, the other is a serious, realistic cautionary tale that has something to say about humanity as a whole. Science fiction was redefined with 2001, but whereas that film showed the genre could be taken seriously, Star Wars showed we could have fun with it as well without losing its integrity.

          We have a similar situation here with Dark Knight and Avengers. We know now from both films the potential the genre has. The Dark Knight Rises will only increase that potential on the dark and serious side, while I'm sure that Marvel will continue expanding their universe and pushing their light hearted approach. Both Avengers and Dark Knight are good for what they are, and after this train of thought I have come to realize that I love them both equally. One exceeds at making me think, while the other exceeds at making me laugh and cheer. I thank both of these magnificent films for revealing the potential comic books have in the world of cinema, and therefore helping to reaffirm my passion for both comic books and films as fun and sophisticated story telling mediums.

The Avengers review

            Well, after a solid week of hype (more like four years of hype), I have finally seen Marvel's The Avengers. Oh. My. God. I can't believe that movie is even real. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around it. What can I say besides this film is a damn near perfect movie, easily the best in Marvel's cinematic canon. There are flaws, of course (what movie doesn't have them?) but the film gets so much right that I didn't even care. Where do I even begin?

            Let's start with the characters. Each and every one of them gives it their all in this movie. Robert Downy  Jr. is as funny as ever as Tony Stark. At long last, my dream of seeing RDJ bounce off the likes of Steve Rogers and Thor has come to fruition. The way he argues with Cap, tries to tick off Banner, and gives nicknames to Thor is hilarious; everything just clicks into place. Chris Evans plays Captain America once again with gusto, even more so as we see him become an actual leader. Chris Hemsworth brings even more depth to the role of Thor, as we finally see him become the god he was meant to be while his humanity is highlighted by his relationship with his brother.

           Speaking of which, Loki is brilliant. I loved the way his character progressed in this film. He was ruthless, but you could tell (spoiler alert) that he was secretly being manipulated by someone else. When he opens the portal and the alien army of Chitauri fly through, he even says it can't be stopped. He's cocky, he's arrogant, and he did what trickster gods do best: cause as much chaos as possible, on both a personal and a global scale. When he and Thor have their talk on the mountaintop, it spoke volumes about their characters. Loki has completely turned his back on Asgard, while Thor wants nothing more than to get his brother back, despite the threat he poses to mankind. But enough about the Asgardians. What of the rest?

        First, I have to call attention to Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner. He's perfect. Perfect in a way that Edward Norton can't even match. He's intelligent, yet extremely humble. He's the only guy who "speaks English", according to Tony Stark. He refers to the Hulk as "The Other Guy", and throughout the film he comes off as a man who has been through hell but has finally found inner peace. When he does hulk out, I'm happy to say, he kicks SO MUCH ASS. He fights Thor, he fights Widow, he fights Loki, he fights aliens, he fights everyone! He's both awesome and at the same time incredibly hilarious. I loved every minute of him. Let's hope Ruffalo stays on board, because he's the definitive Bruce Banner.

       The SHIELD agents are given a lot more depth in this film. Specifically, Scarlett Johanson's Black Widow. I love her opening scene, as we finally get to see her as more of a Russian superspy. Her backstory with Hawkeye was great, especially when she opens up to Loki. That entire scene really highlights how ruthless Loki is, while at the same time deepening Widow's character by giving her more of a history. Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury doesn't get as much screen time as I hoped, but he did have his moment to be a badass, and he still plays the role really well. Colbie Smulders gets almost nothing to do as Maria Hill, but even she played well with what few scenes she's given.

       Clark Gregg knocks it out of the park with Agent Coulson once again. I felt like we really got to understand him as a character more this time around. After coming off as the ultimate badass in the last few films, Coulson this time is portrayed as a huge fan of Captain America, who stumbles with his words in the very presence of him. I loved it. Also (another spoiler alert), his death scene was incredibly sad, but extremely well done. He even says it himself: his death is needed as the driving force that gets the Avengers together. It works. I'll miss you, Agent Coulson. Hopefully a spin-off prequel is heading your way, but if not, this was a fine farewell to your character.

        Then there's the other SHIELD agent, Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye. This was one of the (very few) flaws I had with the film. Renner's Hawkeye is fantastic, and we get plenty of scenes with him once the battle comes around, but for the first half of the film he's mind controlled by Loki and essentially his henchman. The most we learn about Hawkeye we learn through Widow, and I thought that the whole mindwiping deal was a missed opportunity to develop Hawkeye's character.

         Out of all the Avengers, Hawkeye had the least amount of buildup, so I figured he'd get his due this time, but I felt his role here was more of an introductory role, setting up his character to be fully fleshed out in another film. Like I said though, he did get his own chances to shine in the climax, and in an ensemble this big there's bound to be at least one character who ends up short. At the very least, his past relationship with Widow made him interesting enough so that we want to know more about him, so there's always that.

       The only other flaw I could really find with the story was that it was a little too simple, and at times even coincidental. It's basically set up like this: Loki gets cube and escapes, heroes assemble to get cube, they fight on the helicarrier, realize they need to work as a team, Loki creates portal to space and Chitauri come through, heroes fight Chitauri, the end. Maybe it's just me, but I guess I wanted something a little more thought provoking coming from Joss Whedon. But then I have to put this film in context. This is the first Avengers film. The first half is basically getting the team together and providing closure to all the build up from the first five films. There really is no time for a big, thought provoking plot. It's not as stupid as, say, a Michael Bay film, but the straightforward storyline does have advantages.

        The film has a central threat, flows well from one scene to the next, and the audience can understand it regardless of whether they are fans of either comics or the last couple films. When I say coincidental, by the way, I mean more like some plot points seemed a little too contrived. Hulk goes apeshit on the Helicarrier, then suddenly he can play buddy buddy with everyone in New York? Iron Man blows up the mothership, all the Chitauri aliens shut down? So yes, there's that, but again the large nature of the film would only be hindered by a complex plot. What the film does succeed in, with flying colors, is character development.

         I've already mentioned how the superheroes bounce off each other. Not only is their dialogue serious, it is often hilarious. There are so many funny moments in this film (most coming from Iron Man and the Hulk) that the film gets points just for creating a humorous tone even amid all the seriousness. It's not all dark and gloomy like Batman: it knows how to take itself seriously while having fun at the same time. That's the mark of a true comic book film. All of the characters truly benefit from being with each other. Tony's clashes with Cap make him understand the value of heroism and sacrifice, Thor's interaction with the others allows him to respect the mortals he once thought "so petty and tiny", and under pressure Cap knows how to become a leader and utilize everyone's strengths to the task at hand.

          And the Hulk? While I mentioned it's weird that he suddenly learns to play well with everyone, it can be reasoned that Banner finally learned to control the Hulk (as hinted throughout the film). Either way, it was great to see him interact with everyone. I truly believed that the Avengers were an honest to god team when they assembled. This film is, without a doubt, greater than the sum of its parts. The value of teamwork is on full display here, and for that I thank Joss Whedon tremendously.

         I also thank Mr. Whedon for creating one of the best action films I've ever seen. The last act is solid balls to the wall action as the Avengers fight an onslaught of aliens and their giant dragon-like serpents. The aliens themselves amount to little more than cannon fodder, but they're a large enough force to justify a threat for the Avengers. Whedon is known more for his TV work, but give this man a 100 million dollar budget and he shines. He knows how to direct an action scene, and while doubters may complain they've seen it all before in Transformers, the character interaction guarantees we care about what's going on.

        Last but not least, I have to mention (as always) the end credits scene. The film is chock full of moments for comic book geeks to fawn over, such as the Helicarrier rising from the ocean, but unlike the lead in films this movie is surprisingly short on easter eggs. My one wish was that I would hear Cap shout "Avengers Assemble!", but that never happened. Thankfully, the lack of easter eggs is completely made up for with the end credits scene. The mysterious ally who provided Loki with the Chitauri in exchange for the Cosmic Cube was (final spoiler alert) Thanos, the Mad Titan who in the comics wields the Infinity Gauntlet and is powerful enough to warrant the entire Marvel Universe to unite against him. It was an awesome scene, one that perfectly sets up for the next few Avengers sequels.

         Just like that, the Marvel Cinematic Universe now has a new direction: they can go cosmic. Not only that, but the ending also paves the way for the next round of solo films for Iron Man, Cap, and Thor. I simply love how the film creates a shared universe, fully realized, on screen. Not only is it established that the heroes can go back to their own adventures, but they can now team up as well whenever a large enough threat comes along. We had the unique opportunity to see how a shared comic book universe could work on screen, and with the Avengers we got it. And now that it's here, it paves the way for even more films, that will continue to expand the potential of comic book movies for years to come.

         I end this review by saying that the final credits scene was hilarious in its casualness, reminding us once again that the film never forgets the humor beneath the seriousness. Cap might not have said it, but for the first time in cinematic history, the Avengers have assembled, and the way it was done has made it one of my favorite comic book films of all time, if not my absolute favorite.

       

Retro Review: Captain America: The First Avenger

           On the eve of the Avengers, it would only make sense to view the First Avenger last. Today I am watching "Captain America", the last Marvel film leading to the Avengers. The most recent of the Marvel films, I ended up seeing this movie in theaters a total of three times. Was all of that money worth it? After seeing it again, the answer is a resounding yes, even though the good captain does have his flaws.

           First off, let me do an overview of the cast. I have to give tremendous props to Chris Evans. He is the only actor I know who embodies two iconic Marvel superheroes perfectly. He was one of the only redeeming factors of the Fantastic Four films as the Human Torch, and here he does an even better job as Steve Rogers. What I love about Evans is that he completely surprised me in how much he nailed this role. His Human Torch had a massive ego, but his Steve Rogers is a meek, humble man who simply wants to do right by his country. The CGI used to plant Evans' head on a skinny body is so-so, but it's still a decent effect, and Evans' portrayal sells the character in his transition from skinny to buffed up muscleman. Even when a superhero, he's the same humble guy we knew pre-serum, and everything that he did reminded me so much of the Cap from the comics I couldn't help but smile.

          The other cast members do an exceptional job of occupying the film with real people. Hayley Atwell's Peggy Carter is, without a doubt, the strongest of Marvel's love interests. Her romance with Steve feels 100% real, and it was developed at a great pace to make it seem genuine. When Steve sacrifices himself at the end, you could really see the tragedy in her eyes. It's heart wrenching when Steve comes out of stasis after 70 years and realizes he's missed his date. Tommy Lee Jones plays the same gruff character he always plays as Colonel Chester Phillips, but he's given some of the films' best lines. He was a delight to see on screen. Sebastian Stan plays an admirable Bucky Barnes who is very different from the kid sidekick we know from the comics, but his portrayal here (and ultimate fate) seem more like a set-up for the Winter Soldier in the sequel. More on that later.

         Dominic Cooper is good as Howard Stark, Tony's father, who designs Cap's costume and shield. He looks and acts just like Tony, which just goes to prove that these traits run in the family. I also really enjoyed Stanley Tucci as the serum's creator, Dr. Abraham Erskine. He was both hilarious and wise, a perfect mentor for Steve. Finally, there's the matter of the villain. Hugo Weaving, best known for his Matrix role as Agent Smith, here plays The Red Skull, Cap's archenemy. He's effective in the role, and plays it well, but at times comes off as a little over the top. Still, he embodied the Red Skull from the comics in a lot of ways, what with being obsessed with power and obtaining the cosmic cube. His interactions with Cap made me see the irony of their situation: Skull sees himself as a superior, Aryan man, yet he's been demonized with what happened to his face. Cap, on the other hand, is the perfect embodiment of the Aryan man Hitler was looking for, and so Skull is jealous that Cap has everything that he desires. It was an interesting dynamic that I thought enriched the way the characters talked with each other, and added a level of depth to their rivalry.

         Now that the cast is out of the way, how about the story? Joe Johnston, who's directed works like "The Rocketeer", really makes Cap feel like an authentic period piece. It's certainly the most interesting of the Marvel films, solely because of it's WWII setting. Not only does Johnston make the sets look real and the characters seem real, but Alan Silvestri's magnificent score certainly helps preserve that nostalgic feeling. Cap feels like a '40s adventure serial, similar in vein to "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and it was an aspect of the film that I really enjoyed.

          The story itself is your standard superhero origin, but I felt it was fresh simply due to the WWII atmosphere and, oddly enough, the amount of interest invested in the character of Rogers before his transformation. We really get a chance to understand who this guy is, so when he gets beefed up, we root for him even more. Because of this, the first half of the film really shines, with great set-up and character interaction plus two great set pieces involving Cap's chasing of a spy in New York and his assault on the HYDRA facility. Unfortunately, in this repeat viewing I came to notice that there were some flaws that creep into the film starting in the second half.

         Once Cap gets his costume and shield, the film rushes through a poorly edited montage of him and his Howling Commandos blowing up more HYDRA bases. While I'm fine with the concept of a montage, as it certainly helps progress the passage of time and allows Cap to come into his own as a soldier, I felt that more emphasis should have been given to those scenes in order to get a feel of the kind of missions Cap went into. We barely get any character interaction between him and his team, even less so for Bucky, who in the comics was his sidekick and here is presented as his best friend. While audiences might not pick up on this, Bucky's later scenes seem to be set up for the Winter Soldier arc, where Bucky becomes a super soldier for the Soviet Union during the Cold War after being found frozen and eventually thawed out to confront Cap in modern day.

         While that is an excellent arc that I hope gets adapted into a solo Cap sequel, the way this war montage played out never emphasized how close Cap and Bucky are. As a result, when Bucky is "killed", we feel absolutely nothing, which would undermine a Winter Soldier arc if and when it comes. Comic fans will know he survives, but regular audiences won't care. The scene just comes off as rushed, so Bucky's death has little impact. The fact that neither Bucky's death nor the montage carry dramatic weight was a big problem for me. Once again, as in Iron Man 2 and Thor, we see how the race to the climax creates missed opportunities for the story and characters to develop naturally.

         Now it could be argued, as in the way Bucky was presented, that the montage was filmed as is so that we can return Cap to WWII in flashback scenes for sequels, which would flesh out his friendship with Bucky and wouldn't sever Cap completely from his wartime roots. While this does make sense, I would think that a longer, better edited montage would have allowed for this objective while simultaneously offering more action and development for Cap, Bucky and the Commandos. Besides the montage issues, the final battle with Red Skull seems anticlimactic (like the Whiplash fight it runs too short), but the emotional turmoil that Cap and Peggy go through in their last moments before the plane crashes makes up for it. The modern day bookend scenes do a great job of setting up for the Avengers, but like I mentioned earlier they're also tainted by the tragedy of Cap's realization that he'll never see Peggy again. This does wonders for his emotional arc, and sets up the fish-out-of-water angle for Cap in the Avengers that forms a key part of his character in the comics.

        As to the other Avengers easter eggs (because this is a Marvel film, after all), the Cosmic Cube and Howard Stark are more than enough to provide set up. It is no coincidence that the HYDRA weapons sounded like Iron Man's repulsors firing. It's heavily implied that the new element Tony discovers in Iron Man 2 comes from the Cosmic Cube, and the reference to the Cube as "the jewel of Odin's treasure room" plus the Bifrost effect it does to the Red Skull tie the artifact into Thor. There are obviously huge plans for the Cube in the Avengers (as evidenced by Thor's own credits scene) and I can't wait to see them. Plus, it also gives hope that the Red Skull is alive in one of the Nine Realms, which is an exciting possibility for sequels. Then of course is the credits scene, a lead in to a small trailer for the Avengers film itself. I freaked out when I saw this in theaters, and even on blu-ray, a day before the release, that teaser still gives me the jitters.

        And now that I have taken all of the pluses and minuses into account, I must ask what my final verdict on Captain America is. Personally, I think it's a great comic book film, whose excellent cast and WWII setting make the film feel fresh and give it the unique opportunity to be both a standalone picture as well as Avengers set-up. Yes, the second half feels too rushed, so the story doesn't get a chance to develop as well as I hoped, but there is plenty of leeway for development in sequels, and the characters still make me invested in what happens. And, unlike Thor, the montage, no matter how poorly edited it is, does give the film the opportunity to present the passage of time in a manner that allows the characters to grow. Like I said, this has the best romance out of all the Marvel films, given greater weight by its tragic ending. If I had to rank all five Marvel films right now, Captain America would be a step below Iron Man but above The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Iron Man 2. The characters are sharp, the story feels genuine (if sometimes rushed) and the ending is perfect.

          This concludes my first series of retro reviews. The larger picture of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is now clear, but having all these pieces raises just as many questions as it answers. The Avengers is the last piece of the puzzle, and I look forward to seeing it tomorrow now that I have a full understanding of the story up to this point. I shall post my review of the Avengers once I have seen it, so as to end my journey through the Marvel Cinematic Universe in proper fashion.

         

Retro Review: The Incredible Hulk

         It is Day 4 of my Marvel Movie Marathon, and today's lucky film ready for retro reviewing is "The Incredible Hulk". Before I say anything, I want to start out by mentioning that this has no relation whatsoever to the 2003 Hulk movie, despite the opening in South America. The opening credits does a fantastic job of presenting the Hulk's origin without wasting screen time on it, something that I found a breath of fresh air from all those superhero films who have to begin with an origin story. I wish reboots would do this more often, but that's just wishful thinking. What I do know is that this film gains brownie points just for throwing us in the thick of the story, assuming we're intelligent enough to already know or be familiar with the Hulk's origin.

        So if "The Incredible Hulk" is a reboot without an origin story, how does the actual story shape up? Pretty well, as it turns out. There are plenty of references to both the comics and the famous 1970s TV show, not the least of which is a cameo by Lou Ferrigno and the musical theme from the show. The film further pays homage by focusing on Banner's fugitive status, having him travel from South America to the States to Canada all while the  military is hot on his heels.

        Edward Norton plays an excellent Bruce Banner, coming off as both intelligent yet humble and longing to get rid of the monster inside him. Liv Tyler is good as Betty Ross, although a little annoying at times. Still, she's great at supporting Bruce and comes off as a competent love interest. William Hurt plays General Ross, the Hulk's eternal enemy and Betty's father, with great conviction. He truly wants to utilize Hulk as a weapon, but his love for his daughter and his reasoning when the Abomination rampages through the city make him a more layered character. I also enjoyed Tim Blake Nelson as Dr. Samuel Sterns, who comic fans may recognize as the Leader (and indeed, the film sets up his transformation). He's incredibly nerdy, but I love his enthusiasm when he meets the Hulk. Finally, I have to direct my attention to Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky/Abomination. He is a fantastic villain. I love how he becomes obsessed with obtaining the Hulk's power, how he lets it corrupt him so easily and desires it so badly. He was great to watch as a man and even more fun to see as a monster. It's great to finally get an adversary that can match the Hulk's strength, and give him a worthy antagonist to fight.

          Like I mentioned earlier, the story focuses on Banner's fugitive status as he tries to outrun the military while trying to cure his condition. He transforms into the Hulk a total of four times, and the Not-So-Jolly Green Giant has all but three lines of dialogue, but the Hulk himself is a wonder to behold. Now granted, he does look a bit like a video game character, but it's a better rendering than the Shrek on Roids approach we got back in '03. Hulk looks more wild and vicious, but at the same time when he comes out to play he shows a high deal of intelligence. He recognizes and cares enough about Betty to cover her from incoming gunfire, and when fighting the military and Abomination he smashes cars and tanks in half only to use them as shields and brass knuckles. It's obvious that Banner is still in there, and these actions help to make Hulk seem like a real, sympathetic character.

          One of my favorite scenes is when he takes Betty to a cave to get out of the rain, and he goes from staring at her to throwing a boulder at the sky when a lightning bolt whizzes past him. It was like he was challenging the heavens themselves to keep his woman safe. I felt that in that one moment, the Hulk really felt like a genuine person. Yes, he smashes stuff. Yes, he's a destructive force of nature, but underneath that big green hide he's still human, and the film never lets us forget that.

          Now the film isn't up there on the list of my all time favorite superhero films, like Iron Man, but I find this new Hulk to be a step above Iron Man 2 and Thor in terms of its ranking in the Marvel Canon. Besides a couple of references to SHIELD and the Tony Stark cameo at the very end, "The Incredible Hulk" plays out as a standalone story that can show what it needs to show without worrying about setting up future films. Granted, the Stark cameo does play into the Avengers, and the Hulk and Abomination's creations involving the super soldier serum are obviously to help set up Captain America, but these references are integrated in a way where they're not distracting the way they were in Iron Man 2. And, unlike Thor, we have plenty of time here to see the characters develop and for the story arcs to feel genuine, owing to the travelling taking several days, maybe weeks.

          Future films do a lot to put this film in the MCU's timeline. We now know that "Hulk" takes place concurrently with the events of "Iron Man 2" and "Thor". But whereas those films kind of rely on each other to understand their narratives, Hulk can stand on its own. While Hulk isn't my favorite superhero, and I don't find him as interesting as Iron Man or Thor, I remember seeing the first Hulk film when I was little and being disappointed at how boring this supposed action movie was, what with Hulk not even appearing until the 40 minute mark. When I first saw this film in theaters, Hulk was up on screen within the first 15 minutes. This was what I wanted that first Hulk film to be, and for that reason alone I enjoyed the hell out of it. I enjoyed it then, and I still enjoy it now.

          I think that because of the negative reception to the first film, coupled with the fact that people can't really relate to Hulk, this film is very underrated. People often forget about it, or choose to ignore it. They don't think it has anything to do with the Avengers story line until Tony Stark pops up at the end. But it was that cameo that established Marvel was committed to crossing over its films. The Incredible Hulk is that missing link in the Avengers chain, one that works just as well as a standalone picture as it does when placed alongside its fellow Avengers films. Maybe if they kept Edward Norton in the Avengers, people would recognize this film more, but I'm glad they recasted Banner with Mark Ruffalo. He looks the part and seems to act great, plus I heard that Norton's ego made him a control freak on set. Putting Norton on the Avengers would be a disaster, so I actually welcome the change in cast, even if it does mean we'll have had three actors play Banner in under a decade.

           Maybe this film will never break out from the negative reputation of its predecessor. Maybe people will appreciate it more depending on Hulk's reception in the Avengers. Personally, all that matters to me is whether or not "The Incredible Hulk" holds up. For me, it does. It's an enjoyable film that captures the essence of the Hulk's mythology on screen, and while Norton may not be along for the ride next time, he still does a great job of rebooting Hulk and establishing his place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Tomorrow I will be reviewing the final solo Marvel film, "Captain America: The First Avenger", thus completing my first series of retro reviews and my marvel marathon leading up to the Avengers release.

         
         

       

   

Retro Review: Thor

   

      It is Day 3 of my Marvel Movie Marathon, with today's entry being Thor, which Iron Man 2 oh so cleverly set up. With the last two days being completely Iron Man-centric, what happens when a Norse God is thrown into the equation? Does it work like in the comics, or does it come off as too campy?

      Luckily, while Thor does have a couple of speed bumps, his introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe is more than welcome, and still as entertaining as it was when I first saw it in theaters a year ago. I have to start this review by saying that I love mythology. While I've always been partial to Greek myths, I find Norse myths just as fascinating. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were really onto something when they came up with the idea to take ancient Norse gods and put a comic book spin on their extensive mythology. All of the creativity they displayed in making those comics is on full display here in movie form. It never comes off as campy, but at the same time never takes itself too seriously. Kenneth Branagh, who mostly directs Shakespearean adaptations, was a perfect fit for this freshman franchise. At its heart, just like all the myths of old, Thor is about family, and boy do we have a family here. 

        Chris Hemsworth is excellent as the God of Thunder. Having only known him for his brief role in the Star Trek reboot, I was at first hesitant that he could play the buffed up Asgardian with a magic hammer. Luckily, he plays the role exceptionally well. He's cocky and arrogant towards the beginning but really learns how to be humble once he gets to live among the mortals. More on that later. Anthony Hopkins, ever the boss, is magnificent as Odin, even if he is only on screen for a short time. His very presence demands attention. You see this guy riding an eight legged horse coming down from a rainbow bridge, and you crap your pants. He simply is Odin, plain and simple. The rest of the supporting cast is good, although we don't get much insight into their characters. I would have loved to see more of Thor's mom Frigga, as well as the comedic Warriors Three and the beautiful yet badass Lady Sif. I do have to call attention to Idris Elba's Heimdall, who plays the role as Asgard's gatekeeper with such conviction you can't help but be in awe of his badassery. The mortals do well, for what it's worth. Natalie Portman seems the most developed, and Kat Dennings and Stellan Skarsgaard are good as well, but they never interested me as much as the Asgardians. Clark Gregg's Phil Coulson is still a treat to watch, and I did enjoy seeing Jeremy Renner's cameo as Hawkeye, despite how brief it was. 

         But honestly, in terms of acting, the real star of the show is Tom Hiddleston as Loki. He truly is a tragic character. The way his arc played out, it seemed his jealousy of Thor motivated him to play a simple prank, but it snowballed into Thor's banishment and then Loki found out who he really was. His descent into madness was brilliant, and what happens to him in the end is a perfect set up for the Avengers. I can't wait to see more of him and how ruthless he has become between then and now. 

        Getting back to how the film conveys the feel of the early Thor comics, what I found really impressive about the movie was their whole take on Norse mythology, bringing a science fiction aspect that ties it in perfectly with the other Marvel films but never removes the mystical aspect entirely. The Bifrost as a wormhole? Brilliant. The Nine Realms as planets? Also brilliant. I recall the scene where Jane is explaining to Selvig that advanced beings could have crossed over the wormhole to Earth and were worshipped as deities, and they get into this argument about how magic is just science we don't understand and that furthermore, science fiction is a precursor to science fact. I really thought that was an excellent way to justify how Norse gods can play around in the same universe as Iron Man (that Stark reference was hilarious, by the way). I was completely enchanted by all the scenes on Asgard, especially the fight on Jotunheim with the Frost Giants. It was a perfect way to showcase Thor's power and really created the sense that this was all happening on a cosmic scale. 

        Unfortunately, the rest of the film doesn't really show the promise of the opening act in Asgard. Yes, in the comics Thor was banished to Earth to become mortal and learn humility. I'm completely fine with that. I'm also fine with him falling in love with Jane Foster, and not being able to lift the hammer until he was deemed worthy to wield it. But in all honesty, while the Earth scenes do have some great fish-out-of-water comedy, they feel too rushed to really have any dramatic impact. In Iron Man, Tony Stark began the film as a jackass as well, and it was being captive in a cave for THREE MONTHS that changed him. Thor has been cocky for thousands of years, and yet he is humbled by being on Earth for only three days? And, at the same time, I'm expected to believe that he could begin a romance with a mortal while his dad falls into a coma and Loki gains the throne while going insane? All of these storylines had great potential, but the film rushes through them to get to the climax. While Iron Man 2 suffered from having too many storylines that were underdeveloped, Thor has an appropriate number of storylines that feel so rushed we never have time to believe they are genuine. Once again, I'm criticizing for something the film is not, but if Thor was on Earth say, a month, that would not only make his newfound humility and romance with Jane more believable, but it would also give Loki enough time to cement his rule over Asgard and descend into madness. I'm not knocking the story so much as the decision to tell it over the course of a weekend instead of a few weeks. 

         But, with that said, the story does still carry weight despite being rushed through thanks to the acting by the characters. Like I said before, Hemsworth and Hiddleston's portrayals of Thor and Loki are legitimate. They act like brothers, and both of them make their arcs of humility and insanity feel real and in character. When they finally face off on the Bifrost towards the end, it was heart wrenching to see Thor refuse to fight Loki. I would attribute this to Branagh, as his Shakespeare experience obviously came into play here in presenting the complicated relationship these two have with each other and their father. It is the strength of the character interactions that saves this movie, that and some truly great set pieces. I just wish that the story had more time to play out so it could be more effective. As it stands, Thor is a flawed yet fun entry in the Marvel canon, still entertaining a year after I first saw it. 

         I must also mention both the end credits scene and the Marvel One shot, "The Consultant". The credits scene was a perfect set-up for the Avengers, as we now know without a doubt Loki will be the villain and what his motivation is. "The Consultant" was an exceptional way to tie the narratives of Thor, Iron Man 2, and the Incredible Hulk together, as it expanded on Tony's new role as SHIELD consultant while putting the Hulk's credit scene in context, all the while having this explained by Coulson and another agent after the events of "Thor" went down. On this note, I have to say that "Thor" did a better job setting up Avengers than "Iron Man 2" did, as it included SHIELD but put its main story first and foremost. It was more concerned with its characters' development than doing the Avengers storyline, and in that respect I think it did much better with its easter eggs than Iron Man 2 did, even if its flaws put it behind the first Iron Man in terms of its ranking in the Marvel canon. It was great sitting down to experience this film again, and with its completion I look forward to reviewing the next film, "The Incredible Hulk", on the road to this Friday's premier of "The Avengers". 

          

Retro Review: Iron Man 2

     
          My week-long Marvel Movie Marathon, wherein I watch each Marvel Studios film leading up to the Avengers, continues with Iron Man 2. How does the film compare to when I first saw it?

         This is a very tough film to review for me. On the one hand, the comic book nerd in me cannot deny the many awesome easter eggs to the larger Marvel universe. The growing presence of SHIELD represented by the returning Nick Fury and Phil Coulson, plus the introduction of Black Widow (along with her own kickass action scene) was great to see. The shoutouts to Captain America's prototype shield, a quick reference in Howard Stark's notebook to the Cosmic Cube, and of course the after credits sequence with Mjolnir were all welcome additions to the film to help set up the Marvel Cinematic Universe. With that said, as a fan of good films, I thought that these very same easter eggs ended up making the film more of a giant commercial for the Avengers, instead of trying to be the best film it could be the way its predecessor was.

          RDJ saves the film with his continuing charisma as Tony Stark, and his banter with Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts was great. I mentioned this briefly in my previous review, but I really wanted to see Terrence Howard return to the role of Rhodey as he evolved into War Machine. Don Cheadle is a good recast, and there is a nice chemistry between the two of them, but somehow I never really got the sense that they were lifelong friends the way RDJ and Howard connected. With that said, the evolution of the War Machine suit was played out brilliantly, and was one of the few things that was integrated organically into the film's plot. The other factor was Justin Hammer, played with gusto by Sam Rockwell. While the Justin Hammer of the comics is an elderly businessman, I didn't mind this change from the comic books. Rockwell plays Hammer like a pretentious douche, but what I like about this portrayal is that we truly see that at heart, he's a nobody who has tried his entire life to replicate Tony Stark's success, but as a result of living in his shadow just comes off as a poor imitation of him. His motivation to "make Iron Man look like an antique" felt real to me. If only the same could be said about the other villain of the film.

       Now don't get me wrong: Mickey Rourke plays the character of Ivan Vanko really well. Vanko, for the comic book savvy, is a composite character of two minor Iron Man villains, Crimson Dynamo and Whiplash, with Vanko taking the Russian background of the former but the armor design and name of the latter. Rourke, from what I hear, actually spent time in a Russian prison in order to get in character. It's a shame, then, that his character is given so little to work with. I do like how he and Hammer end up together, as I felt that combined they could pose a large enough threat to Tony. But the thing is, he never does. The best part of the movie was without a doubt the race track scene, not only because it displayed what I think is the coolest of the movie armors (the Mark V briefcase armor) but it actually puts Tony in a sense of danger. You get the idea that he could actually die. At that one moment, Whiplash comes off as an honest to god threat. Too bad he spends the rest of the film locked up in a laboratory, upgrading the Whiplash suit while screwing over Hammer by taking control of his Iron Drones. The second act completely lacks momentum because of this. There is not a central threat. Sure, there's the battle between Tony and Rhodey that is meant to be a tribute to the Demon in the Bottle story arc, but it's over before it begins.

        This leads me to my next point: again, while the comic nerd in me loves the expanded role given to SHIELD, their only purpose in the film is to help set up the Avengers, and they're basically shoe horned into the plot when Tony is in need of a way to build a new arc reactor to keep his heart going. Never in the comics do I recall the chest piece killing him. Tony's alcoholism always stemmed from him doubting his self-worth, and coming under pressure from a variety of outside sources. The filmmakers only included the dying subplot to get SHIELD and Tony's daddy issues into the film. Once Tony creates the new element, we move onto the Vanko/Drones set piece and it's like all of that didn't even matter. Tony didn't learn anything from almost dying, he overcomes it as quickly as we learn about it. The alcoholism should've been a result of the Vanko attack and increasing pressure to turn over his suit to the military, not because he was dying. I know this doesn't really do a lot of good because I'm criticizing the film for being something that it's not, but given the plot they decided to go with, it would make a lot more sense to minimize the SHIELD role and remove the dying subplot to focus on characterizing Vanko and emphasizing Tony's alcoholism.

        Further proof that more screen time should have been devoted to Vanko in place of SHIELD is found in the way the final battle is set up. Half of that battle is just Black Widow beating up guards. More attention is given to that then the actual battle with the drones and Whiplash. When it does happen, the drones, and ultimately Whiplash, are defeated in under a minute. Iron Monger had a larger fight scene in the first film. That, to me, speaks volumes about how weak this film is in terms of plotting. I don't want to blame Favrau, because I'm sure he did the best with what he was given, but I can see why he left Marvel and the chance to direct Iron Man 3. At this point, Marvel had a direction as to where they wanted their characters to be for Avengers. SHIELD had to have a larger role, so more time was given to that, and as a consequence the main villain was left without much screen time and therefore had no chance to develop as a character. I felt like we got to know Obadiah Stane in Iron Man 1. We never got that chance with Vanko. And as it goes with all superheroes, the hero is only as good as his villain. If Whiplash wasn't badass enough to hold his own against the Iron Man/ War Machine "Ghostbusters" method, then he wasn't worthy of being this film's antagonist.

        Now after saying all this, you'd think I hate the film. On the contrary, I find Iron Man 2, even after this repeat viewing, to be highly enjoyable. A lot of the humor still works, and again while the easter eggs are unnecessary they do help set up the larger universe, which may not have seemed that important back during the initial release but is more important now that the Avengers is actually a reality. The fact of the matter is, I feel the same way about Iron Man 2 that I do about films like Return of the Jedi, Temple of Doom, or Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: they are highly entertaining films that fall short of the high bar set by their predecessors. They don't do enough wrong to be considered a disgrace, but the weaknesses are apparent enough that the film is a significant step down in quality.
       
          Iron Man 2 does still continue the themes set forth by Iron Man 1, and in that regard it does handle the themes pretty well. The court scene does a really good job of capturing the effect Iron Man has on the world, with the government wanting it while other countries try to replicate it to no avail. The Whiplash attack just goes to show how Tony's revealing of his identity has made him a target, and the fallout afterward shows the dark side of being a celebrity superhero: the public turning against you when you fail to live up to your promises, and the pressure building because it's you being accused, not just your alter ego. In that respect, the fight with Rhodes and the creation of War Machine was inevitable, and I love not only how it was done, but how on a very subtle level Tony shows he's ok with Rhodey wearing the suit. It shows the depth of their friendship, and how Rhodey is the only other man in the world Tony trusts to wear his creation.

        So all in all, Iron Man 2 isn't a bad film, just a little disappointing considering the high bar set by Iron Man 1 and the wealth of material they were working with (traces of Demon in the Bottle and even the famous Armor Wars story arc can be found in here). I just thought that the SHIELD stuff was a double edged sword, both acting as fan service that set up the Avengers but at the same time doomed the film to be too stuffed with underdeveloped subplots. It's no "Spider-Man 3", thank god, but  that's more due to the charisma of the actors then the strength of the story. Still, it cements the Iron Man films as truly part of a larger universe, and primes viewers for the other films necessary on the road to the Avengers. Tomorrow I will be reviewing Thor, since the end-credits scene sets up the film (for future reference, I am reviewing the movies in a semi-chronological order rather than release order). As a bonus, I youtubed the Marvel One Shot short "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to Thor's Hammer", which bridges the gap between Coulson's disappearance in Iron Man 2 and his arrival at Mjolnir's crater site. While the scene was unnecessary, it did show off how much of a badass Coulson is. No doubt he is becoming one of the breakout stars of these films despite his non-comic roots. I can't wait to see what they do with him in the Avengers. And on that note, I must bring this review to an end. I look forward to continuing my revisit through the Marvel Cinematic Universe as the Avengers draws ever closer to its release.