Now I'm Getting Interested...

Just a few thoughts on this new trailer.

Originally, my reaction to The Amazing Spider-Man was: ugh. Too dark. I like the Christian Bale Batman movies, but I draw the line at Spider-Man. I've never read the comics. However, I am a huge fan of Tobey Maguire's depiction. He's a bit annoying and dorky at times, yet Peter's a good kid trying to figure out what to do with these crazy-sweet powers that got dumped in his lap. That's my favorite thing about the Spider-Man trilogy, and what sets it apart from movies like, say, the Batman movies (two so far), the X-Men movies (I've seen four), the Avengers movies (five so far)... need I go on?

This trailer looks more like my idea of Spider-Man. He's fresh, dorky, and cocky like a typical teenaged boy. Granted, he helps create a monster (at least it seems that way), and then decides that he needs to fix it. That's not exactly on the to-do list for every teenager. But life is the unfolding of sin, atonement, redemption, and salvation. Why should movies be any different? I'll be interested to see whether the filmmakers can stick to the "hero-out-to-fix-his-mistakes" thing while still holding onto Peter's (apparently) goofy personality...

Pertaining To Captain America: The First Avenger

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is an ordinary guy. Except for his asthma and other health difficulties. And his weight - about one hundred pounds, and he's a grown man. But the thing that really sets him apart is his heart. Far more courageous than he should be given his physical stature, he would do anything to join in WWII over in Europe. Even lie on his enlistment form, which he does with regularity only to be turned down because of his health. Then one day, Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a researcher for the United States military, offers Steve a chance to help his country. The little guy jumps at the opportunity. But when something goes wrong and he is relegated to selling war bonds and making propaganda movies, he thinks he may have gotten less than he bargained for.

This movie is awesome. The special effects are stunning (more so in the theater than on DVD), it's well-written, humorous, and has a sweet romance. The characters are not only likeable - they're lovable. It's also actually pro-America. But the thing I like the most is the old-fashioned feel.

The presence of World War II probably added to this feel. Setting the story in this time period helped to avoid the usual pitfalls of so-so modern movies: Dated jokes. There's also a simplicity in the story that hasn't been in any other superhero movies I've seen. (And I've seen twelve.) The good guys are genuine good guys (every one), and the bad guys are genuine bad guys (every one). The bad guy wants to conquer the world. The good guy wants to save it. So far, extremely simple and very much like a classic movie.

But what ultimately makes Captain America a throw-back is its similarity to the rousing speeches that heroes used to make in war movies. If you've seen a movie made about WWII during WWII you'll know what I mean. In the climax scene of every one of these movies I've seen, the hero is confronted by the villain. It seems as if all hope is lost. But the hero tells the villain that, while good has lost this battle against evil, evil cannot conquer good. That the Nazi agenda is too evil, too brutal to ultimately win. When one man goes down, three more take his place. When the stakes are high, someone or a group of someones step in and win the battle against evil, at least for a time. That is the final impression of Captain America. Steve is the only one who can defeat the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), but his help is not needed to win WWII. *Spoiler Warning* Though he is lost to the world by the end, the Allies march on to victory against the Nazis. Evil has been defeated, but not for want of victories. That was the message of old WWII movies, and that is a message of Captain America. *End of Spoiler*

The first Iron Man movie is probably the best superhero movie I've ever seen. But Captain America is my favorite. Pro-America, lovable characters, well-written, cool, and with a sense of the old-fashioned, good ol' movie about it, it's a more familiar, sympathetic movie than Iron Man. Even better, the ultimate triumph of good over evil, though it comes with great cost, is clearly seen.

My Rating: T (violence, thematic elements, vague sexual references)

Reviews of similar movies:

• X-Men: First Class
• Spider-Man: First, Second, and Third
• Thor

Pertaining To X-Men: First Class

Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) was treated brutally as a child in a concentration camp, where he first learned that he can control metal objects with his mind. Now it's 1962, and he's determined to track down Klaus Schmidt, the German doctor/scientist who murdered his mother and subjected him to hideous experiments. Enter a telepathic mutant named Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and his adopted sister and fellow mutant Raven (Jennifer Lawrence). Charles teams up with the CIA to track down another mutant named Sebastion Shaw (Kevin Bacon) - formerly known as Klaus Schmidt. Shaw has his own team of mutants, and he has partnered with the Russians in an apparent plan to attack the United States. Charles and Erik inevitably cross paths and decide work together.

(Disclaimer: I have never read an X-Men comic book, so none of this review will come from a comic fan's standpoint.)

This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen. Funny, tragic, cool, exciting, and a little scary at intervals, First Class rises above its minor flaws to the status of a great movie. But the real meat of the movie isn't in the cool superhero (and heroine) powers, or in the story, or in the dialogue. It's in the marvelous acting jobs.

James McAvoy is a pretty good actor. He was great as Mr. Tumnus, and so-so in a badly written part in The Conspirator. But he really shines as Charles/Professor X in First Class. Funny, always optimistic, ever looking out for his friends, and a born leader, McAvoy's Charles is a great character. Every single line and facial expression in the movie is perfect.

Next is Michael Fassbender. I have seen him in three parts now (only two that I remember), and he's simply a fantastic actor. Erik/Magneto is a very complicated character. He's brutal and angry, but can be gentle or even, in one scene, happy. Essentially, he's a conflicted man whose overbearing drive for revenge dominates his entire life, but not so much that his revenge is all there is. As Charles tells him in one scene, there's good inside him - he just doesn't know it. Fassbender pulls this contradiction off beautifully.

The last acting job I want to mention (though everyone in the movie is great) is Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Raven/Mystique. She's not a particularly complex character. She has blue skin, red hair, and yellow eyes that she hides by using her power - the ability to change her appearance completely. She is hurt and angry that society won't accept her. Even her adopted brother seems a little put off by her natural appearance. All in all, not a very difficult part to play. But where Lawrence really shines is in the scenes where Raven is just an ordinary young woman. A warm, fun-loving young woman who's a bit of a spitfire at times must be a difficult part to play, because most actresses I've seen can't do it. Lawrence is perfect.

Unfortunately, First Class isn't my favorite movie for three little reasons. 1) There's too much sexual content for my comfort. None of it is what I would call terrible, but it's constant enough to make it annoying. 2) There's a half-hearted attempt to tie the Civil Rights movement in with the gay "marriage" movement of today.* The attempted tie-in in First Class takes the form of a few scattered jokes, but it's still there. 3) *Spoiler Warning* The part where the U.S. fires on the mutants - good and bad - on the beach is more than a little unrealistic. Unfortunately, there had to be a reason for the X-Men to go into hiding from the government, but the filmmakers could have come up with something better than that. *End of Spoiler*

Despite its flaws, First Class is a job well done. After the total failure of X-Men 3: X-Men United (I haven't yet seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I've heard it's not very good either), the X-Men franchise needed a good reboot. They certainly pulled it off in First Class, despite the movie's flaws.

My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, brutal violence, disturbing images, language)


* For those who don't know, the X-Men stories are reflections of the Civil Rights movement. Professor X is the peace-loving Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and Magneto is the more violent separatist Malcom X. So any tie-in of the mutants with gays is, by extension, a tie-in of the Civil Rights movement with gays.

Reviews of similar movies:

• The Incredible Hulk
• Thor
• Spider-Man
• Spider-Man 2
• Spider-Man 3

First Avengers Trailer Released

*squeals with delight* Okay, now that I'm over my initial thrill, I just have to say that this looks awesome. First, a genuine conglomeration of superheroes, with their own quirks and coolnesses, put into one movie. Second, only Hawkeye's character needs to be established, since the others have had their own movies or at least a fairly major part in another's movie. That means the movie can get right down to the business of saving the world - or avenging it. Finally, Loki looks like he has progressed to a little bit better character. If that is the case, this movie's going to be one for the ages.

On The Incredible Hulk

As the result of a military science experiment, Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) transforms into a mindless beast every time his pulse rate hits 200. Now he must hide in South America with no connections to his former life - he even had to leave the love of his life, Dr. Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), behind. But when the military discovers where he is, they come after him with lots of firepower. Bruce soon finds himself caught up in a deadly battle with military commandos led by the increasingly out-of-control Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth). But Bruce suspects that his greatest enemy just might be himself.

Bleah. First, I wish Bruce hadn't come back to Betty - Liv Tyler is simply dreadful in this role. Arwen in the Lord of the Rings must have been the role of a lifetime, because Liv sadly cannot act. Heck, she isn't even that pretty. Her scenes with Bruce range from crude to stupid to ones of the snorefest variety. And if there's one thing that every movie with romance must have, it's a likeable hero and heroine who actually have some chemistry.

Second, there are holes the size of the Atlantic in the climax scene. Superhero movies are not and should not be totally realistic (otherwise, the heroes would have no powers), but they should definitely be consistent. The climax scene in The Incredible Hulk is not. *Spoiler Warning* It begins as a ho-hum scene, with the Hulk fighting what is apparently called 'The Abomination,' though it's never named in the movie. They try to smash each other up a few times - until the helicopter that holds Betty crashes and eventually catches on fire. This is when the scene becomes stupid. Hulk puts out the fire with a clap of his hands. Really? Seriously? Yep. Then the scene quickly becomes ludicrous. Hulk manages to get a chain around the Abomination's neck and he begins to strangle it. But then Betty - for some unexplained reason - tells Hulk to stop. He does so (thereby showing that Bruce does have control over the Hulk). The Abomination is still conscious, but for some reason it is now subdued. Hulk lets the military deal with it. Really? The only blow that had seemed to even slightly annoy the Abomination was when Hulk threw its head through a concrete wall. But it quickly recovered and attacked again. And now it's subdued? After being merely partly strangled? Pathetic. *End of Spoiler*

All that aside, I was very pleasantly surprised at Bruce's character. The only role I had seen Edward Norton play was Steve in The Italian Job, and I honestly could not imagine him playing a hero that I liked. I was wrong. He was very sweet and kind (except for that one stupid scene in the motel room), and I thought he was a pretty good actor.

Also, any Avengers fan must see the final scene in the movie. I can't imagine that it would be necessary in order to understand the Avengers movie coming out next year, but let's just say that this one scene almost made me forget the stupidity of the rest of the movie.

My Rating: MT (sexual references and content (almost-sex scene in bed; both are clothed), language, violence)

Other superhero movies:

• Thor
• Spider-Man
• Spider-Man 2
• Spider-Man 3

Deleted Scenes Rock!!

In my original review of Thor, I spent a lot of time griping about the empty characters. After seeing the movie again, I stand by my complaints. (Though I would soften them a little by saying that all the characters are likeable and well-acted, if not original.) However, I have a new complaint to add: Why was the pre-coronation scene deleted from the movie?

On the DVD special features I have, there are four deleted scenes. Three of them are more or less dispensable (although I'm pretty darn sure the one between Odin and Frigga was in the theatrical version), but the first one should have been in the movie. In this scene, Thor and Loki have a fairly short conversation prior to Thor's ill-fated coronation. Loki insists that he's proud of his brother, but his bitter character comes through a little bit better than it does in the other early scenes of the movie. He teases Thor about the "feathers" on his helmet (metal wings), turns the wine Thor ordered into snakes, laughs when the servant carrying the wine becomes frightened, and admits that he is sometimes envious of his brother. When Loki says he has waited for this coronation as long as his brother has, Thor calls his sincerity into question and implies that Loki is rarely sincere. All this serves to build a little foundation of doubt about Loki's moral character.

Unfortunately, he's still a little lame. First he seems good, then he seems evil, then he seems merely conflicted and confused, then he's back to evil... you get the picture. Also, there is really no basis for his inferiority complex. In the only scene where Thor and Loki are children, Thor is the one who is reprimanded by their father. Where did Loki get the impression that Odin thinks Thor is a better son? The audience has no idea. However, the deleted scene partly makes up for this obvious deficiency and gives just a glimpse into Loki's twisted mind. Even through his brotherly banter, a little hint of jealousy and a sick sense of humor comes through. Also, the ominous symbolism of the snakes that slither out of the wine cup help establish Loki's character. With this scene in the original movie, Loki's character and motivations would have been a little more believable and consistent.

On Thor

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is on top of the world. As the older son of Norse god Odin (Anothony Hopkins), he is destined to assume the throne of Asgard in place of his father. Unfortunately, just before his father pronounces him king, Asgard is penetrated by evil frost giants from Jotunheim. Thor makes an ill-advised attack on Jotunheim and, instead of being crowned king, is deprived of his powers and banished to Earth for his arrogance. There, he must become worthy to wield the hammer before he can once again return to his home.

The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it is a treat to look at. Asgard took my breath away when the camera first introduced me to the kingdom. The landscapes of New Mexico (New Mexico in the movie, anyway; I don't know if it was shot on location or not) are nearly as beautiful, and even icy Jutenheim, surrounded by clouds, is lovely in a stark, harsh way. The rainbow bridge was also pretty cool, although not as cool as I had heard it would be. The constellations shown during the end credits were also beautiful. The special effects were amazing as well; probably the best I have ever seen. (I've not seen Avatar, nor do I have any plans to.)

The other two great parts of the movie were the humor and the squeaky cleanness. Those two things don't often go together in a movie, even in an animated movie supposedly made for children, but Thor managed to be funny and perfectly clean at the same time. In a day and age when most live-action comedies are rated R, being able to laugh without blushing at the same time is really nice.

With beauty, great special effects, humor, and cleanness, the only things Thor is missing are, well, characters and a story. There are, technically, characters. In fact, there are a lot of characters. Unfortunately, most of them seem to be like Wendy's burgers (i.e., like cardboard cut outs). Even romantic interest Jane's (Natalie Portman) quirky assistant is the type of character that's been in a thousand movies. Granted, she's still funny, but she's not exactly original. Thor is just passable; at least his old-fashioned, gentlemanly manners toward Jane make him unusual for a modern America movie. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is the most disappointing. Just when I thought I had his character figured out, he would do something completely out of character and I would have to rearrange my opinion of him. This isn't to say that his character kept surprising me with new twists. The filmmakers tried too hard to make him evil and conflicted at the same time, the result being one of the clunkiest villains I've ever seen.

Unfortunately for Thor, characters are the driving force behind any movie. Adaptations of Jane Austen's classics, particularly A&E's masterful Pride and Prejudice, are based entirely on their characters. Even caper movies like the Ocean's trilogy wouldn't be nearly as good without characters like Linus or Reuben. At the same time, while Thor isn't exactly a classic, at least it's an action/adventure movie that's actually appropriate for young teenagers.

My Rating: T (family tensions, mild language, violence, scary images)

Concerning Spider-Man 3

Life is good. At least, that's what Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) thinks. Sure, the door to his one-room apartment sticks. But he's at the top of his class, he gets to go around saving people with his superhero powers, his popularity in New York has never been so high, and he's about to propose to Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), the girl he's loved for as long as he can remember. Unfortunately, things never run smoothly for long. Peter's best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), knows that Peter is Spider-Man. He also knows that Spider-Man was responsible for his father's death. Add that to a strange robber nicknamed the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) terrorizing New York, Mary Jane's career troubles, and a weird black substance from outer space and you get a lot of trouble.

Spider-Man 3 is not my favorite Spider-Man movie, but it's probably the best one. The themes, visual symbolism, and graphics are superior to the first and second movies. The reason why it's not my favorite is very simple: The first two feel much more like superhero stories. Slow-motion action scenes, spidey-sense, and basic good vs. evil storylines all contributed to the good ol' action-figure hero feel. Spider-Man 3, on the other hand, is much more complicated.

This more complex twist to the movie is partly owed to the sheer number of "bad guys" in the movie. Harry, the Sandman, the black goop, and even Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), the rival photographer, are all bad characters that Peter or his alter-ego must fight. In the first two movies, it was just Spider-Man vs. the Green Goblin or Spider-Man vs. Doc Ock. Spider-Man 3 has Peter/Spidey fighting evil on all fronts - his personal life, his professional life, and his life as a superhero.

Besides the large number of bad guys, another reason for the complexity of this movie is the question that is posed and answered: Can people who lead bad lives be good, or are we responsible for the lives we lead? I'm quite pleased with the answer given by Spider-Man 3.

As well as asking what a "good person" is, this movie also contains a lot of religious symbolism. *Spoilers from here to the end* The most obvious symbolism is when Eddie goes to the church and prays for Jesus to kill Peter Parker. First he speaks about being humbled and humiliated, which is followed immediately by a shot of a crucifix on the wall. Eddie's humility is being compared to Jesus' humility in not only giving up His life, but in everything He suffered leading up to that point. Then the comparison ends and the contrast begins - Eddie pleads for Jesus to kill his enemy. Jesus' ultimate victory over death was not achieved by killing His enemies, but by sacrificing His own life. A quick glance at a crucifix would show how twisted Eddie's approach to justice is.

Soon after Eddie's prayer, Peter decides to free himself of the awful black goop that took hold of him in the form of a new Spidey suit through the hatred in his heart. He soon discovers that he can't pull it off. His black suit, which has almost taken on a life of its own, has attached itself to him so strongly that nothing he can do will loosen it. Until he accidently strikes the church bell. The rich sound of the bell ringing sends the black suit into contortions, and Peter is freed. His lack of clothing while he lies gasping in the shadows is most likely a reference to being born again.

After Peter rids himself of the suit with the aid of the church bell, the black goop finds another victim in Eddie, whose hatred for Peter consumes him. When Spider-Man tries to free Eddie from the villainous goop, he uses steel bars in a construction zone to make a bell-like sound. Eddie is freed from the goop, but almost immediately throws himself at it again - straight into an explosion. Peter was freed by a church bell. Eddie was, sadly, not entirely freed by steel bars.

My Rating: T (frightening images, mild sexual content)

Picture from coverbrowser.com

On Spider-Man 2

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is having trouble. As Spider-Man, he's an awesome superhero who goes around saving people. But as Peter Parker, he's never on time, neglects his homework, and is far behind on his rent. Into the mess that he calls life comes Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), a brilliant scientist who has learned how to harness the power of fusion. Peter instantly makes friends with the personable scientist, but is a little concerned about the stability of the doctor's work. His fears are confirmed when a demonstration goes awry and the artificially intelligent mechanical arms connected to Octavius's spine take over the doctor's mind. Spider-Man must dig deep and find a way to stop the madman before he destroys New York City.

Spider-Man 2 is not as good as the first movie, but it's pretty good as far as sequels go. I'm not exactly a connoisseur of superhero movies, but based on the ones I've seen (and what I've heard about the ones I haven't seen), I would have to say that Spider-Man is my favorite superhero. For one thing, he actually has super powers. This criteria eliminates characters like Batman and Ironman. For another, he has morals that basically match up with my own in every area. This, again, rules out some "heroes" like Superman. Finally, he's such a real kind of character. He's handsome, to be sure, but he can look pretty silly sometimes. He stumbles and falls (a lot), but he gets back up again and keeps going.

Spider-Man isn't the only one who deals with struggles in this movie. His Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) is dealing with the death of her husband and her financial troubles. But the whole message of this movie is that there's always hope, no matter what you're going through. Whether it's sorrow, financial problems, matters of the heart, or a heavy responsibility, there's always a bright light shining to help you through. People are stronger than a lot of movies give them credit for. Instead of giving in to despair or temptation, a lot of people find strength - a superhuman strength, if you will - to get through the dark night. Though Spider-Man 2 makes no mention that God is the source of this strength, the movie certainly elevates humans above the instinctual animals that many secularists think we are.

My Rating: T (terrifying scenes (ugh!), mild language)

Picture from impawards.com

On Spider-Man

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is just an ordinary geeky high school senior with giant glasses - and a giant crush on his beautiful classmate, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). But MJ barely even notices he exists, except to stand up for him when he misses the schoolbus and has to chase it for about ten blocks. Then one day, Peter is on a field trip to a research laboratory and is bitten by a "super spider" that has been genetically designed to include the characteristics of several different natural spiders. The next morning, he has powers beyond his imagination.

Pros: Spider-Man is one of my favorite heroes of all time. He's a regular guy (I mean, despite his special powers) who has to deal with his problems like any other guy. Of course, his problems aren't exactly like any other guy's... but you get my drift. MJ isn't too bad, either. She really annoyed me the first time I watched this movie, but she's grown on me since then. I feel really sorry for Harry Osborn (James Franco), and Willem Dafoe plays an awesome insane bad guy! The scene with him and the mirror reminds me of Gollum/Smeagol in The Two Towers and The Return of the King - and Dafoe is every bit as good as Andy Serkis was!

Cons: I hate the way this movie is considered a "family movie." It's rated PG-13; it is not a family movie!

My Rating: T (mild sexual content, scary)

Picture from fandomania.com