Top 10 Superhero Movies

I've been on a real superhero kick lately haven't I? Well, when your a big superhero nerd like myself, it's hard not to buy into the hype every summer when studios like to release their high profile comic book-inspired blockbusters to the public. Though between Batman, Spider-Man, The Avengers, Chronicle, and not to mention the other films I've been revisiting on Blu-Ray the last few months, I'm starting to feel a bit superhero-ed out. So... let's finish off the summer with a list of my ten favorite superhero films of all time.

It was tough to compile this list. I'm such a nerd when it comes to comic book movies that I've got tons of favorites and in some ways, it felt like choosing which kids I liked better. There were a couple films that just barely missed the list, so if your favorite isn't here, keep in mind that it probably was a finalist but just lost by just a hair. I decided to do only one film per franchise, so the list wouldn't be full of numerous sequels or remakes taking the credit. Also, with apologies to The Avengers, while despite being an awesome movie, I need to see it one or two more times to fairly evaluate it among the following (since most of these I've seen more than once). But enough stalling, here are my Top 10 Favorite Superhero movies.

10. Unbreakable (2000)
It's weird to think of a time when M. Night Shyamalan wasn't the laughing-stock of the film industry (doesn't that seem like forever ago). Still, prior to his critical flame-out, the guy was putting out some pretty creative and interesting takes on established genres, and his interpretation on superhero mythos is my personal favorite of his directorial efforts (yes, I like this one more than The Sixth Sense). Focusing less on action in favor of character-based drama and suspense, Unbreakable's analysis on the birth of a hero brings real-life sensibilities to the notion of the formation of a super powered individual. While the ending is a little on the nose and leaves far more to be desired, the top notch performances from Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson along with M. Night's stylistic direction and script makes the film one hell of a movie. It's an often underrated and forgotten film that is definitely worth checking out.

9. Iron Man (2008)
A perfect film it's not, but Iron Man nonetheless succeeds hugely thanks to an interesting take on the superhero genre plus a memorable performance from Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark aka Iron Man. The first third of the movie is great, the second act isn't too shabby, but the final third is just okay. It was kind of neat to see a superhero who wasn't trying to save the world per se, but rather just cleaning up his own mess after putting that said world in danger. Jeff Bridges gives his all as the villainous Obadiah Stane aka Iron Monger, but his character was kind of one-note and predictable. That said, the great action, sweet effects, and Downey Jr's incredible presence as Stark elevated this film from just good to pretty damn awesome. Oh, and it didn't hurt that this film kicked off the Marvel connected universe and the countdown to The Avengers.

8. Captain America: The First Aveger (2011)
I know that this film tends to somewhat divide audiences. There are lots who loved it but also plenty who considered it cheesy and corny. Personally, I'm in the camp that absolutely loves it. It's a superhero film plus a WWII epic, how could I not like that? Yes, the movie has some campy overtones, but that's exactly the reason why I dug it so much. Taking inspiration from WWII-era serials, the film blends both retro and modern filmmaking aesthetics, creating a film that has all the fun of an old time picture show and a modern summer blockbuster. It finds a near-perfect balance between it's retro/campy appeal plus some legitimate human drama. It also boasted a great cast led by Chris Evans as the titular Captain, along with some great visuals and stellar costume design. What else can I say, but I just love this movie.

7. Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)
It's really a shame that the Hellboy movies aren't as popular as they could be, since these are some of the most creative and entertaining superhero flicks out there. Guillermo Del Toro is one the most visionary filmmakers working today, and he brings his artistic eye seen in his previous effort, Pan's Labyrinth to these films too. Hellboy II picks up where the first film left off, digs deeper into it's characters and mythos through stellar art direction, visual effects, and it's great cast. Ron Pearlman's performance as Hellboy is always a blast to watch, as he blends the character with a great balance of wit, toughness, and humanity... and that's saying a lot when you consider that Hellboy is, at his core, a demon. Either way, these films are pretty damn awesome and if you haven't seen either one, definitely check them out. Hopefully we'll one day get a third flick to complete the trilogy.

6. Watchmen (2009)
It's a real testament to the talent of a director (in this case Zack Snyder) when he can not only adapt a graphic novel that has often been called "un-filmable" but also make it into a pretty incredible film on it's own right. I don't want to overstate the film too much, as there are a few elements of the novel that (as predicted) don't translate quite perfectly to screen as one would like. Still, just the fact that Watchmen made it to theaters in such glorious style is damn-near a miracle. The movie looks fantastic, with a style and aesthetic consisting of beautiful art direction, excellently composed cinematography, and some sweet action. While the story and some of the actors have a few hiccups, it still manages to convey most of the legendary graphic novel's themes and messages without ruining any of the characters. Oh and Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach... Hell Yeah!!!

5. X-Men: First Class (2011)
There had been four live action X-Men films prior to this prequel. The first two were quite good, the third was just okay, and the fourth (the Wolverine spin-off) was pretty bad actually. The fifth film, a prequel entitled X-Men: First Class, was admittedly pretty damn awesome. Despite being plagued by a rushed production schedule and some hit-and-miss visual effects, the film found a winning combination of a great cast, great story, and great style. The friendship between Charles Xavier aka Professor X and Eric Lencher aka Magneto was the highlight of the film, featuring an uneasy alliance between two powerful mutant individuals whose ideals couldn't have been more different. More than that, Matthew Vaughn's slick direction, which borrowed heavily from golden age 007 flicks, led to a great sense of style, some awesome action scenes, and strong performances from it's talented cast. What can I say, but this was just a first class flick.

4. Superman (1978)
While it's no secret that many superhero movies made before the 90s haven't exactly aged gracefully (though there are exceptions), the original Superman still holds up remarkably well. The first big budget superhero flick, the film's tagline was, "You'll Believe A Man Can Fly"... and we still do. A great cast, memorable set pieces, an amazing musical score, and some classic scenes, this adaptation is still flying high Christopher Reeve's memorable performance as the Man of Steel is enjoyable both as Superman and Clark Kent. The film also benefits from the enjoyable villain, Lex Luthor, played by Gene Hackman who in addition to being the villain also adds some comic relief. I also dug the relationship between Superman and Lois Lane (played to perfection by Margot Kidder), as the two shared some great chemistry in a romance that doesn't overshadow the main story. It also doesn't hurt to have Marlon Brando as Supes father, Jor-El, because Brando is just that much of a legend. Finally, I have to mention the outstanding musical score by the great John Williams. Everytime I hear that classic Superman theme, I get goosebumps, it's just perfect. Superman, admittedly, hasn't aged flawlessly, but there's no doubt that what works in this film... really works! It was awesome then and it's awesome now.

3. The Incredibles (2004)
Comedic legend Mel Brooks once said that the best movie parodies are done out of a love of the content being spoofed. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Pixar's animated superhero satire. The film, about a family of super powered individuals thrust back into action after trying to live a quiet suburban life, clearly wears it's love for comic books on it's sleeve. It pokes fun at the genre's cliches, but it does so by laughing along with those cliches as opposed to at them, and still manages to deliver a fun and exciting superhero epic complete with all the action you would expect out of a modern Hollywood blockbuster. Best of all, the film boasts an outstanding script compliments of writer/director Brad Bird with fully realized three dimensional characters and themes of family relationships and companionship. Throw in some stand-out voice over work from it's talented cast plus Pixar's always impressive animation, and you have a winner. Not just a good satire, but a damn great film in it's own right.

2. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
The first Spider-Man flick, released in 2002, struck a chord with audiences and critics mainly through B-Movie director Sam Raimi's knack for creating a world blending 60s comic book sensibilities and stylized modern filmmaking aesthetics. The sequel, released two years later, took everything that worked in the first while improving on everything that didn't. We get a solidly character driven narrative as Peter Parker (played once again by Toby Maguire) struggles to balance his everyday life as himself and his responsibilities as the web-slinger. Best of all, the film introduced one of Spidey's most famous comic book foes, Otto Octavius aka Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina), as a once decent man turned to villainy after a terrible tragedy. Doc Ock's sympathetic backstory made him a dynamic and intimidating foe, leading to a good hero/villain rivalry. Throw in some absolutely bad-ass action scenes (that train scene is still one of my favorite movie action scenes of all time), Raimi's trademark cinematography, and some legitimate suspense mixed with fun comic book sensibilities, and you have one of the best comic-to-screen translations of all time.

1. The Dark Knight (2008)
Yeah... I know this was an obvious choice, and as much as I would have liked to think of something a little more out of the box, there's just no denying that The Dark Knight set and continues to hold the standard for the genre. Taking inspiration from gritty crime genres and throwing in the Caped Crusader, The Dark Knight wasn't a spot-on adaptation of Batman comics, but rather a fully realized film that honored the themes and virtues the comics had stood for. It's a constantly suspenseful crime saga with an outstanding cast, commendable story, intriguing characters, mind-blowing action, and one of the greatest villains to ever grace the screen. Heath Ledger's iconic performance as the Joker is nothing short of legendary, taking bits of inspiration from previous incarnations while still bringing his own touches to create a villain that was both familiar, unique, scary, funny, and all around perfect. I have no doubt that someday, a talented team will make a new superhero flick that will top this one, but until that day comes, The Dark Knight will continue to reign supreme as the undisputed champion of superhero flicks.

So these are my top 10 favorite superhero films to grace the silver screen. Agree? Disagree? Let me know what you think and leave a comment.

And just because I feel bad for leaving some out, here are a couple of honorable mentions.
The Avengers, Kick-Ass, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, V For Vendetta and The Rocketeer.

Chronicle - Review

If there's one particular film genre that I've had consistently mixed feelings toward, it's got to be found footage films. With the rise of podcasting, smart phones, and social networking, it's easy to see why they've had such a resurgence in popularity. Unfortunately, they've never made much of an impression on me, I've never hated them but I've never particularly cared for most of them either. Many of them are just generally gimmicky and cheap looking movies that use shaky cams and grainy/dark quality videos in order to cover up the low production values and take advantage of a lower budget. Even some of the higher budget (Cloverfield) or critically praised movies (Blair Witch Project or The Last Broadcast) were kind of "meh" to me. The only found footage movies I've ever really gotten into were the Paranormal Activity movies, though even those I admit were enjoyable mainly in a fun guilty pleasure kind of way. Chronicle took the genre in a new direction, combining both found footage with the sensibilities of a superhero flick. The idea was interesting for sure, and as far as I knew, it hadn't been done before (correct me if I'm wrong though). I unfortunately missed this one in theaters, but managed to pick up the Blu-Ray and finally got around to watching it. Does it live up to both of it's respective genres or does it get lost in it's gimmick?

Chronicle primarily centers around the teenage Andrew Detmer (Dane Dehaan), an introverted high school student picked on by his classmates, abused by his alcoholic father, and coming to grips with that fact that his mother is dying of cancer. His closest friend is his cousin, Matt Garretty (Alex Russell), a more popular and mostly well-meaning (though kind of a douche too) student who constantly tries to get him more involved among his school peers. One day, in order for Andrew to cope with his difficult school and home life, he buys a video camera and starts chronicling his day-to-day life. When Matt eventually persuades Andrew to come to a friend's party, the two meet fellow student, Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan), the friendly and uber-popular big man on campus. At this party, the three teens discover a small cave containing mysterious and unknown (possibly alien) object that inexplicably gives them telekinetic powers. The trio then embraces their new-found powers, primarily using them for fun and games, but as their powers become stronger, they begin to test their integrity. Suddenly, the find themselves faced with the decision to use their abilities responsibly or to embrace their darker inhibitions.

One of my issues with found footage movies, particularly big budget films set in high profile metropolitan cities like this film, is that it becomes difficult to suspend your disbelief. This doesn't apply so much to lower budget horror flicks like Blair Witch or The Last Broadcast, because those are set in indistinct locations that most probably are not familiar with like the middle of the woods in a random rural town. For instance, even though I know a movie like Paranormal Activity isn't real, the fact that it takes place in a random location and features two people I've never seen or heard of, it becomes somewhat easier to buy that what I'm watching might have actually happened... or at least seems more plausible. Higher budget found footage films like Chronicle or Cloverfield are set in well-known metropolitan cities and feature big scale disasters. When I was watching Cloverfield, it was hard to get into the movie, for me at least, because the movie tried so hard to make it look like some top secret document of a major disaster that actually happened. Though, if by some chance, a giant monster actually appeared in New York and started tearing up the city... yeah I would have heard of that. Hell, Chronicle is set in Seattle, the city where I live, and if a bunch of teens with superpowers were running ape-shit downtown, you bet your ass that would be national news. So with that said, you're probably thinking that I hated this movie. To answer that... while I do think that the film probably would have been more effective if it didn't go with a found footage aesthetic, I have to admit that overall, I thought it kind of rocked.

Where Chronicle succeeds where so many other found footage movies have failed is in it's script, particularly it's characters. The main characters are a group of three likable and sympathetic teenagers with depth, development, and naturally flowing character arcs. Soon after we meet them, we get a feel for who they are, where they are coming from, and what drives them. It helps that the actors to portray the three characters are spot on. The standout has to Dane Dehaan as Andrew, who infuses his character with a raw sense of emotion and drama, allowing the audience to make a strong connection to his character. More than that, Chronicle paints one of the more believable and accurate depictions of high school life and conventions while addressing many common concerns and troubles teenagers face (well, at least it seems legit compared to my high school experience from what I remember, I have to admit it's becoming harder for me to critique teen movies seeing as I graduated from high school seven years ago... damn I feel old.) The film itself bares more than a few similarities to Stephen King's Carrie, which itself was a story of an outcast teenager who acquires telekinetic and takes revenge on her abusive parent and condescending classmates. Carrie was a great book adapted into an outstanding movie in 1976 (one of my all time favorite flicks), and while Chronicle takes a few too many queues from that particular story, it was nonetheless a good source for which to take some inspiration.

Something I mentioned earlier is a pet peeve I have concerning how so many found footage movies utilize shaky cam gimmicks along with dark, grainy, or generally low quality video to cover up their lack of budget. Personally, that kind of style tends to just annoy me and draws me away from the experience. Chronicle manages to side-step this problem by actually presenting a film with mostly steady camera movements and an overall solid display of production elements. Most of the time, Andrew or some other character is holding the camera via their telekinesis in a stable and watchable manner, allowing the audience to actually see and absorb what's happening on screen. The film is edited in a profoundly interesting way as well, most of the film takes place from the POV of Andrew's camcorder, but every so often the film will cut to footage from either another person's recording or footage from a nearby security camera. It kind of makes you wonder why they bothered with the found footage style in the first place, but I guess you can't argue with what works. Speaking of which, Chronicle also boasts some of stellar cgi, which is all the more impressive considering it's relatively low budget. Aside from a handful of iffy cgi shots, most of them looked pretty solid and managed to blend in with the real elements of their environment. All of this culminates to a third act finale that is all but guaranteed to knock your socks off. While it doesn't quite compare to some of the finales of some recent superhero epics (though it's not really fair to compare a 12 million dollar film to a 200+ million dollar epic like The Avengers), it's still pretty damn amazing to see what can be accomplished with a sub-par budget.

Despite all this movie has going for it, I admit that it's not perfect. While I dug the film's characters and subtext within the script, it nonetheless resorts to mostly predictable development and an ending I think most will see coming. It wasn't hard to predict the fates of the primary players, and shouldn't be to any semi-regular moviegoers. Plus there were a few times I couldn't help but question a few circumstances regarding the found footage elements. For instance, there are a couple of scenes that I couldn't help but think why would a character be filming a certain incident, or why they would have a camera in the first place. As I mentioned, I can't help but wonder if this film would have benefited more as a traditional narrative as opposed to a found footage film, but that's a relatively unimportant nitpick that boils down more to an aesthetic choice.

So overall, Chronicle kind of rocks! Aside for a handful of nitpicky-related critiques I have about the film, I don't have too many bad things to say. It's an interesting take on the superhero genre that's well-acted, well-directed, and for the most part, well-written. I'm kicking myself for missing this one in theaters, but the cash I spent on the Blu-Ray was definitely money well spent. If you haven't seen this one yet, definitely check it out.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

The Amazing Spider-Man - Review

Alright! Before I write this review for The Amazing Spider-Man, I need to get something off my chest. Now, that Christopher Nolan has finished his Dark Knight trilogy, can superhero films please stop trying to copy the Batman formula! I get it, Nolan's trilogy was awesome. I loved the movies, you loved them, everyone loved them, but come on people! Batman is NOT the only superhero around, and not every flick to feature a costumed crime-fighter has to be about some dark and brooding anti-hero. I mention all of this, because for the last few years, I've seen so many movies guilty of this, though the recent reboot of the Spider-Man film series, is arguably the worst offender. I can only assume that the filmmakers were trying to distance this particular film from the previous trilogy, and they figured a much looser interpretation of the Spider-Man mythos mixed with not-so-subtle "elements" (ie, a nicer way of saying ripped off) from Batman Begins and character beats reminiscent of Twilight was the way to go. Oh yeah... btw, the film takes a good dose of "inspiration" from Twilight too... my God what have they done to you Spidey???

*As per usual, I'm going to avoid spoilers when I can, but in this review, there might be a few story details I'll be discussing that may or may not be considered "spoiler-ish." That said, most of what I'll be talking about is familiar territory and should come as no surprise to anyone who's seen the 2002 film. I'll say this much, I promise that I won't reveal anything beyond the first act. Take that as you will.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a retelling of Spider-Man's of-told origin story. As a young boy, Peter Parker was left in the care of his Aunt and Uncle, Ben and May Parker (played by Martin Sheen and Sally Field respectively), after his parents inexplicably left and never returned. The story fast forwards years later to the now teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), who has become a shy outcast among his high school peers. Curious to discover why his parents abandoned him, Parker digs up his father's old briefcase, which reveals that he was an Oscorp scientist working alongside the one-armed Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) on a top secret project that could merge human and animal DNA. Determined to learn more, he visits Dr. Connors at his lab to discuss his past. It is here, where Parker gets that fateful spider-bite from a scientifically enhanced bug that gives him his superpowers to become Spider-Man. Meanwhile, Dr. Connors, in an attempt to regrow his lost arm, injects himself with a serum composed of reptile DNA. While the serum manages to replace missing arm, it brings forth the unfortunate side effect of turning him into a human-sized and reptilian monster known as The Lizard. With a homicidal Lizard loose on the streets of New York, Spidey takes to the streets to stop him before it's too late.

I'm going to do something I don't normally do right here. Typically, I don't consider it really necessary to discuss my feelings or history for a series like Spider-Man. That said, every time I've had a discussion with someone about this movie, I've been called a Sam Raimi fanboy or comic geek that either is too in love with the previous trilogy, too attached to the comics, and/or doesn't appreciate change or modern interpretations of these characters. So I'm just going to get this out of the way and let you all know exactly where I'm coming from. Yes... I have always been a huge fan of Spider-Man. I was a casual reader of the comics growing up (though I haven't read one in years), enjoyed the shows, liked most of the video games, and was a fan of the previous three movies. I loved the first film, really loved the second (my second favorite comic book movie behind Dark Knight), and thought the third was decent despite a few really stupid moments (say what you will folks, but I don't think Spider-Man 3 is as bad as it's been let on). Do I think it's kind of lame that they're retelling the origin story with the previous flicks still so fresh in people's minds... yeah kind of, but not enough to not give this film a chance. Do I hate modernizing comic book properties or re-imagining characters to fit a new theme... of course not, as long as they're done well. It can be kind of frustrating when properties are re-imagined to a point where they barely resemble their source material, BUT as long as they work in a narrative sense while honoring the themes and ideas of the original material, I'm cool with that. So I don't mind reinventing the character... in fact, I encourage it. So yeah, just wanted to get that out of the way.

So after all of that, what did I think of The Amazing Spider-Man? To be honest, I found it to be pretty damn average. It's not bad in the strictest sense as there are a number of things I did genuinely like, but there was just too much about it that I found forgettable, overly-familiar, or just plain bad. To be fair, the film boasts a great cast, promising director, and a couple of pretty cool action scenes. Unfortunately, they're all serving a narrative that is problematic from start to finish. I have no problem with the decision to set this film in high school and it's pretty cool that they decided to make Gwen Stacy the love interest instead of Mary Jane Watson (Gwen came before MJ in the comics). None of that makes up for a script full of plot holes, pacing issues, and problematic characters.

That last point I mentioned is really the biggest problem with this flick, the characters don't work, especially the lead character. I'm not critiquing the cast so much right now, but just the characters from a narrative perspective. In an effort to differentiate Andrew Garfield's Peter from Tobey Maguire's version, this flick downplays the science nerd aspects of the character and instead turns him into... actually kind of a cipher. That's not inherently a bad thing, as it can add a level of mystery to the character that might keep the story engaging as it unfolds. Unfortunately, the best way to actually describe him is something like Edward Cullen meats Bruce Wayne (as in, Bruce before he became Batman)... and no, that's not a good thing. His character is so inconsistent that we never really get a feel for who he is as a person... except that he's kind of a douchebag. At times he's an emo, at times he's a skater, and at he's a manic depressive. None of that would bother that much if they took the time to make the character likable in some way, shape, or form, but they really don't. Throughout the film, Parker is, quite frankly, kind of an asshole. The theme of his "character arc" (I use that term loosely because there's next to no character development) is less about "With great power comes great responsibility" but rather "When you get superpowers, try not to be a douche." I hate to compare this flick to the previous 2002 movie, but since the film goes out of its way to remind you of it, I can't help but think how much better it was done in the first. Take for example the scenes where Peter's Uncle Ben is murdered. In the original, Ben is killed because Peter refuses to take down a thief who robbed a guy that cheated Peter out of 3000 dollars. It was an irresponsible move on Peter's part that led to his Uncle's death, and it suddenly puts things in perspective of what Uncle Ben meant when he said "With great power comes great responsibility." He takes up the Spider-Man mantle as a means to honor his Uncle's death and his wisdom. That's a great start for a superhero and it really makes you root for the character. In this flick, Uncle Ben dies because Peter refuses to stop a thief from robbing a convenience store after the clerk refused to sell Peter a chocolate milk for being a few pennies short. Do I even need to explain why these two don't compare? To make matters even worse is that Parker created the Spidey mantle as a way to avenge his uncle's death. A movie can survive a lot of things, but a bad lead character is a tough hurdle to overcome, and unfortunately this movie struggles because of this.

Now, if there's one way to make up for a weak hero it would be a decent villain and The Lizard was a promising choice for Spidey foe. He's a Jekyll and Hyde kind of villain, an otherwise decent person who turns into an evil reptile when testing an experimental serum to regrow his lost arm. This, in it of itself, is a good setup, and Rhys Ifans is a good choice for the part. Unfortunately, the character suffers thanks to odd structure and strange motivations. Once he turns into the actual Lizard creature, he inexplicably also turns him violent and evil... a bit strange but I can buy that. Where it gets confusing is when he periodically changes back to a human and for some odd reason still retains his evil qualities. As the movie progresses it only gets more absurd. Eventually, the lizard serum not only makes him evil but also turns him into something of a "reptilian fascist" with a mission to create an all lizard society. None of this really adds up or makes much sense, especially when you consider that his only real motivation in the first place was to fix his missing arm. Once again, a promising villain totally wasted. There are a whole bunch of little plot holes and inconsistencies in the script that detract from the movie's quality. Everything from abandoned sub plots and pointless characters are here. Plus, the other major thrust of this narrative was to explore why Peter's parents disappeared, which is only barely explored and left unanswered to presumably be examined in the inevitable sequel. You can basically sum up the screenplay with this statement, promising material ruined thanks to sub-par execution.

From a technical perspective, the film is hit and miss. Spider-Man's new costume is a bit over-designed but unmistakably recognizable as Spider-Man. Fortunately, it gives Garfield the ability to move around in what are some admittedly decent action scenes. There are a couple of enjoyable hand-to-hand combat segments along with some exciting web slinging moments. From a pure geek perspective, I do have to admit that it's cool to see Spidey using the mechanic web shooters instead of the organic ones from the previous trilogy. The settings were a bit odd though. Why they had to set so many scenes in lens-flare saturated nighttime shots, I don't know (well, I guess they were trying to emulate The Dark Knight) but I don't have too many complaints on that front. Unfortunately, I do have some majors issues with the cgi used to render The Lizard... my God does he look terrible. The design is problematic, as he looks like a cross between The Lizard and those goombas from the Super Mario Bros movie. It's not helped that the cgi itself looks like a cut-scene from a mediocre video game. Their efforts to find creative angles to film him in order to make him look less awful were commendable but none managed to remedy just how awful he turned out. You know, a lot of people complained about the Green Goblin's goofy looking suit in the first movie, but I'd rather have a cheesy looking practical effect any day as opposed to sub-par cgi. If there was one thing a summer blockbuster like The Amazing Spider-Man has to get right, it's decent action and production value, and despite the Lizard, it's more-or-less mission accomplished.

Finally, we come to the cast. For the most part, I don't have much to say about the chosen actors, none were great but none were bad either. Andrew Garfield has done some great work prior to this, namely as Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network, and as Parker he does a commendable job working with such a flaky script. Emma Stone, once again, gives another strong performance as Gwen Stacy, who is both the love interest, but also manages to contribute a bit to the plot as well. Rhys Ifans does what he can as The Lizard, and despite the weird motivations, looks like he was having some fun hamming it up a bit as the villain. Martin Sheen and Sally Field were a bit on the nose as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, but they do their usual good job. The only real stand out to me was, believe it or not, Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy, Gwen's police chief father. Leary is primarily known for his comedic roles, so seeing him do a role somewhat against type worked to his advantage. He's a strong character who cares deeply for his family as the safety of New York's citizens, and at first approaches Spider-Man as a dangerous vigilante. While we know Spidey isn't evil, he nonetheless acts somewhat reckless and kind of a dipshit, so it's understandable why Stacy would be reluctant to trust him, and Leary does a good job personifying that kind of character. Overall though, I can't complain too much about the cast. Most did a solid job and managed to somewhat elevate the film.

Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man is hardly what the title implies. It's by no means amazing and not even that particularly good. It's just pretty average when you get down to it. I know this film was plagued by a rushed schedule and frequent re-writes, so hopefully the sequel will improve on this front. Overall though, I wasn't that impressed but not overly disappointed either. If it's still playing in theaters and you've managed to miss it, keep on doing that or wait for a DVD rental.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

The Dark Knight Rises - Review

Alright! After seven movies, here's my final review for the live action Batman movies. To be honest, I'm actually kind of relieved. Despite the fact that I'm a huge Bat-nerd, devoting my last six reviews plus this one has been kind of difficult, and I'm feeling a bit Batman-ed out. Fortunately, this is one hell of a film to end a series review. Expectations were high for the concluding chapter of Christopher Nolan's genre defining Batman trilogy. As excited as I was for this film, there was a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that the chances that this film would be capable of living up to the incredibly high standards set by The Dark Knight were pretty slim. That said, I admit that it was hard not to buy into the hype, but I did my best to keep my expectations in check prior to the film's release. Does The Dark Knight Rises live up to the hype and it's predecessors? Let's find out.

*By the way, even though this movie has been out for a while, I'm still going to do my best to avoid spoilers. I'll be sure not to mention any major twists, plot turns, or character reveals, but based on what I write, you may or may not be able to infer some of what happens. Take that as you will. That said, I'm going to reveal major details from the previous two films.

The Dark Knight Rises takes place eight years after the events of the previous film. Shortly after Batman (Christian Bale) took the fall for Harvey Dent's aka Two-Face's crimes, he was branded a fugitive and went into exile. Dent's death (with him branded a hero) led to the passing of the Harvey Dent act, an initiative that put an end to organized crime in the city of Gotham. Police Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) has been presiding over a mostly peaceful city, but the knowledge that the peace stems from a lie has left him troubled. Bruce Wayne, now spending most of his time secluded and holed up in Wayne Manor after giving up the Batman mantle, has grown increasingly depressed and isolated. His interests are peaked, however, when he is robbed by a mysterious cat burglar named Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway). Kyle's antics lead Wayne to pursue the mysterious woman. Meanwhile, trouble in Gotham has been brewing. A new threat to the city arrives in the form of Bane (Tom Hardy), a mask-wearing terrorist with genius-level intelligence and incredible strength. Not only is Bane arguably Gotham's most terrifying threat, but he may or may not have ties to the League of Shadows, the group of ninja assassins once led by Ra's Al Ghul that trained Bruce Wayne to become Batman. Realizing the threat imposed by Bane, Bruce Wayne once again suits up as Batman to take on his most imposing foe yet.

Right up front, I'll answer what I think of the movie. Is it as good as The Dark Knight... no. Is it as good as Batman Begins... not quite. Is it a good movie... definitely. Is it a great movie... for the most part, yes... somewhat. It definitely did not blow me away like it's predecessor managed to do, but overall I left feeling very happy over what I had watched. It's not every day that we get a third entry to a series that almost manages to live up to the films that came before it. Let's be frank folks, making a movie is a challenge, making a sequel that lives up to the first is even more difficult, and if your sequel is able to not only repeat the success of a first entry but actually surpass it, the expectations set of the third film are damn near impossible to meet. So, the fact that the film isn't as solid as The Dark Knight doesn't really bother me that much, since the film is still pretty awesome. Ask yourselves, how many great threequels have you seen? Toy Story 3 is one, Return of the King is another, and The Good The Bad and The Ugly is pretty damn close to perfect. The Dark Knight Rises, in many ways, is very similar to Return of the Jedi. Both have a few problems and don't quite live up to their successors, but they are nonetheless very exciting movies on their own right that wraps up the story and provides a fitting end to an awesome trilogy. I mention all of this so you can keep in mind, that regardless of whatever critiques I may or may not point out, that overall I was very happy with the movie and left more than satisfied.

Once again, Nolan's take on the Batman mythos scores big thanks to the efforts of an uber-talented cast. The absence of Heath Ledger's commanding presence of the Joker is sorely missed, but the rest of the cast nonetheless does a solid job elevating the movie. Christian Bale takes on the cape one last time and he still kills as The Dark Knight, despite the fact that he still hasn't let up on that scratchy Batman voice. Gary Oldman is still among the best of the ensemble as Commissioner Gordon, bringing his natural talent to a role he's clear become all to comfortable playing. Michael Caine spends a good deal of time absent from the film, though when he's on screen, his performance is arguably his best of the series, this time giving way to some real sincere emotions. Morgan Freeman can't help but do his usual good job as Lucius Fox, Wayne Enterprises CEO and Batman's personal armorer. I also have to mention that Cillian Murphy makes a cameo as Jonathan Crane aka The Scarecrow, that was pretty neat. There's really not much more I can say about the returning cast members that I haven't mentioned already in the previous reviews. They're all great, what more can I say?

The newcomers are all pretty awesome too! The standout is hands down Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle aka Catwoman (okay, she's never actually called Catwoman on screen, but I don't care... SHE'S CATWOMAN DAMMIT!). Her character is a total cipher, and Hathaway really does keep you guessing. That's the interesting thing about the character, in previous incarnations she's been portrayed as a villain, hero, anti-hero, and everything in between. I won't spoil exactly how she's portrayed here, but I will say that Hathaway's natural talent made her hell of a lot of fun to watch. Joseph Gordon Levitt is another standout as a rookie cop named John Blake. He's a young recruit with an idealistic mind similar to the optimistic nature of Wayne and Gordon prior to the events of The Dark Knight. Levitt is a solid actor whose quickly climbing the ladder of super stardom, and I imagine this film might help that. Marion Cotillard stars as Miranda Tate, a Wayne Enterprises board member and friend to Bruce Wayne. I've only seen a few things starring Cotillard, but every time I've seen her, I've always been impressed by her acting ability, and I dug her performance here too. Finally, we come to Tom Hardy as Bane. Now, there's actually a lot I have to say about the character here, but a lot of that will come later when I discuss the script. Tom Hardy himself took on a very challenging role, acting as a character who wears a mask for the whole film is not easy. That said, Hardy has a very commanding presence as Bane, acting mostly with just his eyes. He's a very threatening villain, to say the least, and for the most part is kind of compelling. I admit it's kind of weird to have this giant brute speaking with this Irish/Welsh sounding accent. It actually reminded me a bit of Gert Fröbe's voice from Goldfinger. It was strange I admit, but to be honest, I kind of dug it. I can't really explain why, but it was just different, and for that I was interested. So yeah, no Heath Ledger caliber performances, but the cast did a commendable job and made the movie work.

The story for this movie is easily the series' most ambitious attempt and also the most flawed. The film runs at 2 hours and 45 minutes, making it the longest film in the Batman film series. That certainly gives it something of an epic feel, but unfortunately, that extended runtime might have been a little more than the filmmakers should have taken, as the film suffers from some noticeable narrative and pacing issues. Most of the time, something interesting or engaging is happening, but there are more than a few spots where the story just drags. There are a few scenes involving the stock market and the class discrepancies of Gotham's citizens that feel like were attempts to include some current event subtext to the movie. The ideas are interesting, but none really feel completely relevant to the main plot, nor do they give the movie any significant weight. Say what you will about the previous movies, but while those didn't have particularly poignant stories, they nonetheless included some interesting tidbits and themes that felt relevant to the main plots at hand. Here, the hinted subplots feel like the writers needing to cram in some relevant socio-political subtext that feels fairly out of place to the plot at hand. They didn't take away too much from the film itself, but just kind felt irrelevant. It also doesn't help that the film has a few minor gaps in logic and a few near-gaping plot holes that either don't gel with the gritty realism aesthetic that's driven this trilogy or just leaves you saying, "Wait, that doesn't make sense." To reveal which scenes I'm speaking about and how they play out would be revealing some spoilers, but you'll probably know most of them when you see the movie.

The main plot, when it's not branching out to include it's half-assed attempt at social commentary, is mostly quite good. The main plot is centered around Wayne attempting to once again get back into the swing of things as The Caped Crusader. He still feels guilty over his failure with Harvey Dent and how Gotham's salvation came at the cost of a lie. Seeing him fight through that guilt, plus his attempts to overcome the physical and mental challenges put upon him keep the movie interesting. The strong hero/villain dynamic and interactions between Batman and the Joker from the last film are sorely missed, here replaced by a rather underwhelming dynamic between him and Bane. The latter poses a great physical challenge and even with an element of their past the two have in common, they're rivalry feels more on the nose rather than dynamic. It's not terrible, don't get me wrong, but I was hoping for more. Fortunately, the scenes between Bruce and Selina give the script a bit of an edge. It's certainly a more character driven script, for Bruce at least, so for that I give props.

The character of Bane is kind of an interesting one to analyze. While I already mentioned that Tom Hardy did a solid job playing the character, the way which the villain was portrayed was not what I expected. He barely shares a resemblance to his comic book counterpart, though seeing as most of the trilogy's villains haven taken considerable liberties with the source material, that's hardly a surprise. On the surface, he's a cool character... super strong and extremely intelligent, and arguably The Caped Crusader's most challenging foe so far. Beneath the surface, however, there's just not too much to his character. Let's compare Bane to the two previous villains. Ra's Al Ghul was a well-intentioned psychopath, despite having a hatred for criminals and corruption, his methods were flat out evil, and even with his good ideals he was really just as evil as the people he was fighting against. That's pretty interesting, and it poses some questions for thought, when does one's actions, whether of good or evil intentions, cross a line into evil in itself? The Joker was an antithesis to Batman, who not only matched Batman in wit and theatricality but proved that such chaotic acts have equally strong opposite effects. Bane feels like the leftovers of those two villains. A formidable foe for sure, but beneath the muscles, he's just a vengeful psychopathic mastermind... cool but not as interesting. The story overall is well intentioned and benefits from some good ideas and mostly good characters, but it just can't support it's ambitious as well as it clearly wanted to. I'll also throw this out, the film is chock full of little tidbits, throwbacks, and references to some of Batman's most notable comic moments that made my inner geek very happy.

I've spent so much time bashing the script that you probably think I disliked the movie, but that's not true. Christopher Nolan's spot on direction continues to serve this series well. The movie, once again, looks fantastic. The gorgeous camerawork, incredible action scenes, and Oscar-worthy editing and sound design make for a movie that's all but guaranteed to entertain. It was cool to see Batman take to the air in the Batwing (well, in this film it was called just "The Bat," but I'm calling it the Batwing instead because it sounds much cooler), and show off some sweet aerial battles and stunts. Once again, I have to give props to the filmmakers of this series for finding a near-perfect balance of real stunts and cgi. With so many cgi-laden films overflowing the Hollywood blockbusters these days, Nolan's Batman utilizes real effects when it can to create some eye-popping action scenes and using cgi only when necessary. At the very least, the film looks great, has some awesome action, and is overall a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

So yeah, that's The Dark Knight Rises, the final installment in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. While it doesn't quite live up to the previous flicks, it nonetheless ends the series on a more than satisfying note and is about everything you could want in an awesome summer blockbuster. If you, by some chance, haven't seen this movie, definitely check it out!

My Score: 4 out of 5!

The Dark Knight - Review

Director Christopher Nolan rebooted the Batman franchise in glorious form with 2005's Batman Begins. Not only did it return the series to a darker tone, but it also finally gave a character based narrative that treated Bruce Wayne/Batman as the primary focus and, for once, not a stunt-cast villain. For the most part, it struck a chord with both critics and the public, with audiences eagerly awaiting a sequel after the film's not-so-subtle tease that Batman would soon be facing off with his arch-nemesis, The Joker. The film, simply titled The Dark Knight, was released in the summer of 2008. The hype was substantial and expectations couldn't have been higher. We expected to see something good, but what we would eventually get, was something none of us could have predicted...

The Dark Knight picks up approximately one year after the events of Batman Begins. Batman/Bruce Wayne (once again played by Christian Bale) continues his fight against crime and corruption in Gotham City. Still aided by Police Lieutenant Jim Gordon and his loyal butler Alfred Pennyworth (played once again by Gary Oldman and Michael Caine respectively), the streets of Gotham are improving and organized crime is on the way out. Better yet, Batman receives a new ally, Gotham's recently appointed District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Dent is the city's first legitimate ray of hope in years, a well-intentioned idealist, Dent's heroic efforts have put numerous criminals behind bars and put the city on the path to salvation. Just when things begin to improve, a dark cloud makes its way over Gotham. A psychotic mastermind known simply as The Joker (played by the late Heath Ledger), an "agent of chaos" with a Glasgow smile and clown makeup, seeks to undo all of Batman and Dent's efforts. Even worse is the Joker's unpredictable nature and ability to be one step ahead of everyone else. Batman is pushed to his mental limits as the Joker's chaos continues to push Gotham into a pit of total anarchy. What will it take for The Dark Knight to bring down a criminal of this magnitude.

The Dark Knight was arguably the most hyped up movie of 2008. After the critical success of 2005's Batman Begins, audiences were eager to see how Christopher Nolan would continue the story. The film was preceded by an extensive viral marketing campaign that gave fans the chance to participate in the revealing of new information. There was extensive mystery surrounding the film's new depiction of the Joker portrayed by Heath Ledger, and when Ledger tragically died months prior to the movie's release, that just raised more questions. There could not have been anymore hype surrounding this blockbuster, and expectations were at an all time high. Did it manage to live up to them? While I can't speak for everyone, I can say that the movie was released to a mostly positive consensus from critics, while audiences generally embraced the sequel. For me personally, you bet your ass this movie delivered!

This sequel scores big thanks to it's talented cast. Christian Bale returns as the Caped Crusader, once again bringing the same enthusiasm and intensity to the character as he did before. While he could have held back a bit on the scratchy Batman voice, I still maintain that Bale is the best live action performer to take on this character. Aaron Eckhart brings his natural talent to the depiction of Harvey Dent (to whom comic book fans know what the character being here means), the well-intentioned if somewhat troubled DA bent on saving Gotham. The film, in many ways, really belongs to Dent. His character has the most prevalent character arc, and he really sells his character's development (which I will not spoil despite the fact that I'm sure everyone has seen this movie by now.) The character of Rachel Dawes returns for this flick, now played by Maggie Gyllenhaal. This was a change for the better, as Gyllenhaal is a much better performer than Katie Holmes and contributes to the film's solid cast. Gary Oldman returns as James Gordon, and once again showcases his acting chops as one of Batman's closest allies. Returning players like Morgan Freeman as Wayne's armorer Lucius Fox and Michael Caine as Wayne's trusted butler Alfred Pennyworth do their usual good job here too.

Of course, you all want me to talk about Heath Ledger's iconic performance as the Joker. Let me tell you folks, everything that's been said about Ledger is true. Not content with simply a good or even a great performance, Ledger took an already well-known character and made him something incredible, dare I say even legendary. His portrayal of the clownish psychopath took bits and pieces from nearly every previous incarnation of the character while adding his own personal touches. In the process, this depiction of the Joker is as familiar as he is unique. Not only is he funny, but he's bat-shit scary too. This particular incarnation, as a matter of act, has sometimes been compared to Alex from A Clockwork Orange, and personally I can see the resemblance. Both characters were all about spreading anarchy and chaos, so the similarities are there. The film as a whole is quite suspenseful, and most of the movie's suspense is compliments of Ledger and his iconic villain. No joke here, Ledger's Joker is one of the best movie villains of all time. If nothing else, the film is worth seeing for Ledger's performance alone.

The movie, overall, looks great. Chicago once again stands in for Gotham City, and through some top notch cinematography, the city looks excellent. The action is an improvement of it's predecessor as well. While Begins had over-indulged in excessive shaky-cam, this one improves on that front by limiting the camera shake and letting the viewer to take in what's on screen. This is especially good since the film has some incredible action scenes that would have been severely hindered through too much shaky-cam. The stand out has to be an awesome chase scene that occurs approximately halfway through the movie. Add in a few other fight scenes plus an epic finale all realized through top notch camerawork, editing, and choreography, and the film is a technical masterpiece.

Story-wise, it's an exciting and consistently entertaining superhero epic that plays with some neat ideas. It's not a particularly tight narrative, but when you've got a story with the Joker, that's kind of to be expected. There are a couple scenes with outcomes that are so crazy and really push the plausibility of Nolan's "gritty realism" approach, but most of the time, they come off as just crazy enough to work (or at least seem believable.) That said, there are a few minor plot holes and gaps in logic here and there that might leave you scratching your head. Some have complained that the film is too long, and at 2.5 hours, it does run a bit longer than it probably needed to, but personally, I was having such a blast with the film that it practically whizzed by. The ideas it touched on kept the story engaging, at times even poignant. As Jim Gordon said at the end of Batman Begins, "what about escalation?" It's an interesting point, what happens when a city's criminals have adapted to new forms of law enforcement (or in this case a vigilante)? Plus, the Joker, in many ways, is a creation of Batman's doing. While Batman used theatricality to strike fear into the hearts of criminals, the Joker uses a similar approach to strike fear into the hearts of Gotham's citizens. This begs the question, is Batman's presence actually doing more harm than good? These are interesting questions that the film manages to portray, and makes for a movie that's while not quite thought-provoking, is at least somewhat interesting.

So, that's The Dark Knight... and yes, this movie is awesome! At the time of the film's release, and even today, many film-goers were calling it one of the best movies of all time? Do I agree with that statement??? Truthfully... not quite. There's no way of comparing this particular film with some of cinema's greatest achievements. Despite what some will tell you, this film is not on par with movies like Citizen Kane, The Godfather, The Seventh Seal, or Vertigo (I mention those particular films because I've actually heard people say The Dark Knight is superior to the four I just listed). That said, I do think The Dark Knight is, in some ways, a sort of masterpiece. It's arguably the biggest step forward for superhero/comic book films, ranks among the best of most summer blockbusters, and is easily one of the best offerings of the action genre. It's proof that summer blockbusters can be both exciting and have a brain, and if there were more summer outings like this, blockbusters probably wouldn't have as negative as a reputation among film snobs. Oh, and by the way, yes I do think this film was unfairly snubbed out of a Best Picture Oscar nomination.

My Score: 5 out of 5! I know it's not perfect, but dammit I love this movie! If you're one of the five people in the world who hasn't seen it... what the hell are you waiting for? See it!