Captain America: Civil War

It's no secret that Superhero mash-ups are a big thing. Ever since six of Marvel's greatest had to band together to fight villains from another world in The Avengers, audiences have been craving more alliances between Superheroes. This year, it seems, Superheroes aren't getting along so well. We've had Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice which pitted two of DC's best known heroes against one another. Now Marvel's heroes, The Avengers, are being split down the middle and are fighting amongst each other in Captain America: Civil War (2016). The result is a highly enjoyable and, holding true to Captain America form, makes some interesting political commentary.

With many people fearing the actions of super heroes, the government decides to push for the Hero Registration Act, a law that limits a hero's actions. This results in a division in The Avengers. Iron Man stands with this Act, claiming that their actions must be kept in check otherwise cities will continue to be destroyed, but Captain America feels that saving the world is daring enough and that they cannot rely on the government to protect the world. This escalates into an all-out war between Team Iron Man; Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Vision (Paul Bettany), Black Widow Scarlett Johansson), War Machine (Don Cheadle), and Spider-Man (Tom Holland); and Team Captain America: Captain America (Chris Evans), Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp), Scarlett Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) while a new villain emerges (Daniel Brühl).

While overall I liked The Avengers: Age of Ultron, it could have been better. Civil War was much more along the lines of what I had hoped for. Tons of Superhero action, incredible fight scenes, intermingling between super powered characters, clashes of personalities, interesting themes, etc. Civil War is first and foremost a sequel to Captian America: The Winter Soldier. It's a continuation of the story of Captain America and his old friend who was brainwashed and controlled by Hydra. The second story is the governments of the world putting a system of accountability on the Superheroes and the resulting conflict between our heroes. This second story is a natural side effect of the Captain America/Bucky Barnes story, so they are intertwined in very logical ways.

The hard part is to know who to cheer for. In The Avengers there was a really great, but short, fight scene early on between Thor and Iron-Man. It was amazing because these were both characters I loved and the fight was incredible, and I simply did not know who to root for. It wasn't until Captain America intervenes to breaks up the fight, which itself was amazing, that the two lowered their arms. The fight was creative, took advantage of and displayed each hero's respective powers and abilities, and was edge-of-your-seat exciting. You wanted to see them really lay into each other, but you didn't want either one to lose because you already like these characters. Civil War is pretty much a whole movie with fight scenes like that one. But it's so well written that you still don't know which team to side with. The conflict that arises from the Hero Registration Act makes a lot of sense. Neither side is wholly wrong, and if you, yourself, aren't flip-flopping between which team you'd be aligned with, you're just being unreasonably stubborn. Civil War is that well written. The major fight between sides is absolutely amazing, and again you don't want anyone to really get hurt, but you just can't help but get caught up in the action and see the very different personalities and superpowers clash in the most epic ways. Most of the heroes are in it for a short while, but they are just so fantastic. I love how Ant-Man keeps forgetting less super powered hero's names; he refers to Hawkeye as "arrow guy."

Holding true to Captain America tradition, Civil War makes some social and political commentary. It explores topics of the morality and justification of revenge, how much control the government should have over its citizens, the idea that law is not an indicator of morality and how many horrible things have been done to people that were perfectly legal, and the traumatic effects that war has on innocent bystanders and those who get caught in the crossfire. There were lots of people who died in the epic fight scenes we love so much in previous Marvel movies, and the natural consequences of those fight scenes are coming to fruition here. Normal people are becoming fearful of superheroes and what they are able to do, so a Hero Registration Act makes sense. But at the same time, Civil War explores the idea that while war is absolutely a terrible reality, it is sometimes necessary. Having people who are able to stop the evil actions of others is good. They save as many people as possible but often are not able to save everyone, which is truly regrettable. But are the rescuers at fault for not saving everyone? Would it have been better to let the enemy have its way and save no one at all? The human cost of "Collateral Damage" is explored respectfully here. It's a complicated set of topics that can be touchy issues. Civil War explores these topics without getting preachy or telling you what you should think, and does it with a safe Superhero metaphor over the top so as not to potentially offend. The themes explored in this movie are fascinating and make for a rich story.

Two new heroes are introduced in Civil War, we were teased with these new characters in the trailer. The first of which was Black Panther. Wow, this character was fantastic. He was complicated, compelling, interesting, and a fun addition to the movie. I truly have limited knowledge of this character from the Marvel comics, but I couldn't help but love him. He's scheduled to have his own movie early in 2018 and I am psyched about it now that I've seen Black Panther in action. The other is my all time personal favorite superhero, Spider-Man. This is the third actor to play Spider-Man and he's quite possibly my favorite. That's saying something because Tobey Maguire was pretty great and Andrew Garfield did a solid job as well. We don't get an origin story for Spider-Man this time, which is good. It would have taken too much time and we've already had the origin of Spider-Man, possibly one of the best known original stories in the Marvel universe depicted on the big screen twice in a relatively short amount of time between two Spider-Man film series. This Spider-Man is still in high school, is reluctant to join the fray because he's got a big math test to study for, he's a hilariously talkative and cracks jokes during fights (a signature component of the character), he's not yet confident in himself and is still mastering his newfound abilities, acts like a fanboy in front of all the established heroes, and comes up with ideas for taking down opponents from "old movies" like Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. Sony owned the movie rights to Spider-Man and since the character was an important component to Marvel's Civil War storyline, Disney had to negotiate rights to the character back from Sony so Spidey could be in the Civil War movie. I don't know that we'll have another Spider-Man movie from Sony (probably not), but Disney has one starring Tom Holland as the infamous web-slinger due out in summer of 2017, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of this Spider-Man in action as well. We came to Civil War to watch Captain America and Iron-Man throw down, but frankly Black Panther and Spider-Man pretty much stole the show in every scene they were in.

So, we've got this new villain that gets much of the two storylines rolling. Helmut Zemo plays such a small role in everything that I often forgot he was there orchestrating events so far behind the scenes that he was often overlooked. He's not powerful, he has no superhuman abilities, he's working alone, he was dangerous only because of knowledge and convictions he held. He wasn't even much of a villain, but more of a weasel who would sneak around and push buttons in just the right way to get a small reaction that would escalate exponentially into big conflicts while almost entirely avoiding attention. I'm not even familiar enough with Marvel comics to know if this was ever a major villain; I've never heard of him before. He's a pretty good weasel, and his subtlety is a refreshing change of pace from the over-the-top flashy villains we've had in the past.

Captain America: Civil War begins the next wave of Marvel movies with an action-packed blockbuster boasting a decidedly non-cartoonish plot and the courage to explore some thought-provoking themes. It's thematically heavy, and indeed doesn't end on as positive a note as we usually get from Superhero movies. The writing is excellent, the large cast of heroes all get their due screen time and moments to shine, and their clashing personalities are positively delightful. The action is creative and riveting to say the least. Civil War is fun, smart, and coherent. Most importantly, it allows its heart to beat strongly amid the chaos, with character moments and set pieces working together to create one of Marvel's best films so far. I loved Captain America: Civil War. It is worth the ticket price to see in theaters, and worth getting a copy of when it's available on home video. Just make sure you're all caught up on previous Marvel movies before you see it; like The Avengers movies, it's important to know where each character is before they all come together again.

So, which side were you on while seeing this movie, Team Captain America or Team Iron Man? Comment below and tell me why, but please be careful to avoid spoilers.

The Avengers: Age of Ultron Review

As I understand it, Marvel/Disney was originally considering doing only one superhero team up movie, but after The Avengers broke box office records and became the third highest grossing film, they changed their minds. Following The Avengers we got to keep up with some of our heroes in Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Finally, with much anticipation, The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) was released. While it's an exciting and fun ride, it's not nearly as satisfying as the first Avengers movie.

Now officially fighting as allies, The Avengers - Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) - raid a Hydra outpost where Hydra has been experimenting on humans using the scepter previously wielded by Loki. The Avengers encounter two of the experiments; twins Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) who possess powers of superhuman speed and psychic powers respectively. Once the scepter is retrieved, Stark and Banner discover an artificial intelligence within the scepter's gem and secretly use it to complete Stark's Ultron global defense program. Unexpectedly, Ultron (James Spader) believes he must eradicate humanity to save Earth. The Ultron A.I. eliminates Stark's A.I, J.A.R.V.I.S. (Paul Bettany), takes control of Starks global defense program, and attacks The Avengers in their headquarters. Building newer mechanical bodies to house himself in, Ultron soon has an army of robots under his control as well as the Maximoff twins. Ultron puts his complex plan into action, but as he systematically exploits the weaknesses of each of The Avengers, the six of them may not be enough to save the world again.

Joss Whedon returns to direct Age of Ultron. He's proved his writing and directing skills many times over. He is particularly proficient in telling stories with multiple characters; it's tricky to tell a good story about more than one or two characters and still give them their own compelling story arch. That was expertly done in the previous Avengers movie. Here, Whedon again allows the very distinct characters their own screen time, lets them have their moment to shine, and lets them bounce off of each other wonderfully.

There are problems with the movie, though, and I'm not confident that it is Whedon's fault. I can tell studio executives got their hands on things a lot, effectively limiting and constraining Whedon's creative liberties. It's as if they tinkered with what was probably a much better script to maximize what they thought would make money and draw in audiences, at the expense of what would be a solid, satisfying movie. Iron Man, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier were phenomenal successes because they were left in the hands of competent directors and writers. If future Marvel movies are manipulated by the studio and executives as much as this one is, I can't see the franchise doing as well further down the road.

The movie becomes practically bloated with his huge cast of characters with new allies, enemies, and cameos making appearances. Maria Hill, Nick Fury, War Machine, Peggy Carter, Prof. Selvig, Heimdall, and Falcon all return from previous movies to make appearances to varying degrees. There are even some overt hints at future characters whom we know will be getting their own movies if you know what to look for. Don't get me wrong, it's incredibly exciting to see more Marvel characters make it to the big screen, but it effectively gets to the point that there are too many characters to keep track of. Age of Ultron doesn't rely on previous films to develop the returning characters; they still develop and have their own story arches, but there are so many story arches to keep track of.

Age of Ultron is a long movie with a run time just shy of two and a half hours. As I understand it, it was originally closer to three hours long. You can tell that there were chunks of the movie omitted. After having his mind toyed with by Wanda, Thor decides that he must leave briefly go on a vision quest. We see very little of this quest, none of the actual vision, and are left confused by Thor's sudden change in perspective. This was not a small change as Thor suddenly takes actions against his fellow Avengers, insisting that they trust him. We don't understand Thor's motives here, and it is caused by important scenes being cut from the movie. There are a couple of other times where scenes left on the cutting room floor make the story hard to follow. It's no less exciting and fun to watch, but certainly gets harder to follow and a bit confusing.

One of my favorite scenes was the party following the retrieval of Loki's scepter. Our heroes are socializing, relaxing, and sharing their victory. Thor and Stark quibble about who has the better girlfriend, Romanoff and Banner flirt with one another in a charmingly awkward way, Rhodes/War Machine tries to find an audience to tell his victory stories to, Steve gives relationship advice about waiting too long, and it culminates with various characters trying to lift Thor's hammer. This developed the characters various histories, interests, and personalities wonderfully. But the tone changes drastically when Ultron interrupts, appearing for the first time in a battered mechanical body. He's weak and just learning how to make a body for himself; he resembles a broken, creepy marionette and delivers a disturbing and beautifully written dialogue about how The Avengers are all killers, and he has a mission to bring peace to the world. In spite of its flaws, what the movie does well, it does very well. It may be bloated with many characters, but they are, for the most part, good characters. Even Ultron is an intimidating and menacing villain.

The previous Avengers movie was incredible, and was greater than the sum of its parts. The Avengers: Age of Ultron, frankly, is not. But it still boasts some pretty incredible parts and is one heck of a fun superhero party. There's more superhero action, the story is influenced by the various storylines from all the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe movies all the way back to Iron Man, and boasts some amazing visual effects. It is abundantly clear that the movie suffers from creative constraints imposed by the studio and scenes that were left on the cutting room floor. But there is going to be a three-hour extended cut with an alternate ending available once it hits blue-ray, so maybe that will improve the overall quality by having few scenes left out. This is absolutely worth seeing in the theaters; it may not be as satisfying as the previous film, but it's not one to miss. I also advise watching the phase two Marvel movies I mentioned at the top of this review again to remember where our heroes were before this movie started.

Joss Whedon won't be returning for the third Avengers movie. Do you think another director will do as good a job? Comment below and tell me what you think!

Captain America: The Winter Soldier Movie Review

Considering the current state of America and its government's reluctance, inability , or refusal to help average, non-wealthy, non-corporation citizens, it seems the only kind of patriotism these days is the knee-jerk "we're number one" nationalism variety. I praised Captain America: The First Avenger for its comments on patriotism and where the true strength of America lies. Now that Captain America is finished with The Avengers movie and is returning for his own second movie I had high hopes for more patriotism, political commentary, and superhero action. Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) did not disappoint.

For Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), awakening after decades of suspended animation involves more than catching up on pop culture; it also means that this old school idealist must face a new world of subtler threats and difficult moral complexities. That becomes clear when Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) is killed by the mysterious assassin,  The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), but not before warning Rogers that S.H.I.E.L.D. has been subverted by its enemies. When Rogers acts on Fury's warning to trust no one there, he is branded a traitor to the organization by Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford), a senior leader within S.H.I.E.L.D, a member of the World Security Council, and an old comrade of Nick Fury. Now a Fugitive, Captain America must get to the bottom of this deadly mystery with the help of Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and his new friend, Sam Wilson/Falcon (Anthony Mackie). The battle will be costly for Captain America, with Rogers finding enemies where he least expects them while learning that The Winter Soldier looks disturbingly familiar.

The characters in Captain America: The Winter Soldier were positively amazing. Steve Rogers in particular was great. He's been working for S.H.I.E.L.D. for the two years that followed the events in The Avengers, and he's still trying to adjust to the modern world. It's not so much a question about his shock with modern technology as it is about societal differences. He has gone from the 1940's to today; he comes from a world where people were more trusting and the threats were not as deep. Now it's harder to tell who's right and who's wrong. In our world, actions you take to protect people from threats could compromise liberties and privacy. That is really tough for Steve to swallow. He is teamed up with Natasha and they form a fascinating dichotomous contrast. She is incredibly modern, not very reverent, and exceedingly blunt whereas Steve is a man from the 40's. Steve isn't necessarily a boy scout, but he is reserved and has a strong moral center, whereas her moral center moves around as the situation requires. As a spy, Natasha lies for a living. Steve is a character who tells the truth. Give them a problem and they'll have very different ways of approaching it. She pushes him to modernize while he pushes her to add a certain level of integrity to her life. The characters and their respective actors bounce off each other beautifully.

The First Avenger told us about real patriotic American values. Winter Soldier makes some fascinating commentary about modern politics in a very relevant way without being heavy handed in trying to be relevant. It raises questions about the United States Government and how it behaves. It does this in a smart, almost subversive way. It's very pertinent to how we define freedom currently, versus how we defined freedom in the 1940's. There is a scene early in the film that sets up this interesting question. Fury tells Rogers a story about his grandfather and a gun; basically a variation on "walk softly and carry a big stick." But then Fury shows Rogers "the stick;" weaponry that can take out 100 hostiles in a minute, than can read a terrorist's DNA from a million miles away, and basically eliminate threats before they can become threats. "We're going to neutralize a lot of threats before they even happen," Fury tells Rogers. "I thought punishment usually came after the crime," Rogers objects. "S.H.I.E.L.D. takes the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be," says Fury. Rogers boldly retorts by telling him “You hold a gun on everyone on Earth and call it protection. This isn’t freedom. This is fear.” How could one not think of the way America has invaded other countries based on rumors of stockpiled weaponry or the monitoring internet use for any signs of correspondence with enemies? In the other Marvel movies we've had invading aliens, killer robots, and super powered villains to fight. Here we've got very human enemies that are using very real methods to attack and undermine the good guys. The only things we're asked to believe is the "super soldier" Steve Rogers being at above normal human ability, and S.H.I.E.L.D.'s airships and their Bond-style spy gear. Everything else is pretty down to earth, and that makes it all the more relatable. The villains aren't just trying to take over the world, they're probably targeting YOU specifically!

Disney has taken over Marvel and their second wave of movies leading up to The Avengers 2 has been good so far. These Avengers movies have proven to be a corporate cash cow, and I'm surprised that they took the chance to tackle these big issues rather than playing it safe. And similar to what was done in Iron Man 3, it messes around with the franchise canon a bit. I won't spoil anything, but any fan will know that is horribly taboo. S.H.I.E.L.D. has never been without it's issues, and I'm interested to see where the movie series goes with it.

The Winter Soldier was a formidable opponent for Captain America to face, but The Soldier didn't have much of a presence until toward the end of the movie. He's a good villain and introduces further moral dilemmas for Captain America to deal with. Moral dilemmas for Captain America are always black and white, but The Winter Soldier presents the only real grey area that he has had to face. It makes the character dynamic all the more fascinating. Sebastian Stan did an outstanding job acting this part; he gets few spoken lines, and most of his face is obscured for much of his screen time. Having said that, he manages to portray a great deal of emotion through facial expression and actions. Stan did a great job in this role given his limited screen time. The Winter Soldier's theme music starts off eerie and gradually swells into a sort of panic screech which makes the formidable enemy all the more frightening. I didn't think he played a big enough role to get his name in the title of the movie. If you're familiar at all with the comic books, you'll know that The Winter Soldier has a huge story arc and that this is probably just the first chapter of his tale.

Captain America: The Winter Solider was excellent. It delves deeper into theme and character than the other Marvel superhero movies have. It's a very character driven movie that has some very pertinent themes that are magnificently woven into the story so as to avoid being preachy. We get several new characters and we get some glimpses into their past without focusing on unnecessary details; each character has their own distinct arc. The action is great, the pacing is even, and the effects are amazing. Even if you don't enjoy super hero movies that much, you'll probably enjoy this one. I recommend brushing up on your Captain America lore by watching the first movie again before seeing this one. Make sure you watch for Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk references, and stick around for mid-credit and post credit scenes. I'm going to be getting a copy of this when it hits Blu-ray. Don't miss this movie!

Have you seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier yet? What did you think? Avoid spoilers, but tell me what your impressions were and what the future might hold for the Marvel Universe movies.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Movie Review

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World hit theaters in 2010, only a few years after the graphic novel upon which it is based hit shelves.  I’d never heard of the Scott Pilgrim comics before seeing the movie trailer. It’s another strange genre-bender. Action-romance, maybe? It’s a genuinely fresh type of movie; I haven’t seen anything quite like this before.

22-year-old Canadian, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) plays in an amateur rock band called “Sex Bob-omb” that is trying to gain popularity and get an album recorded. He dates Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), a high-school girl five years younger than him. Scott hasn’t quite recovered from being dumped by his former girlfriend, who is now a success with her own band. After a concert, Scott’s band attends a party to try to schmooze with some sponsors. There he meets a mysterious American girl named Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and falls head over heels for her. Scott has trouble breaking up with Knives while also trying to romance Ramona. As if juggling two women wasn’t enough, Ramona comes with baggage; seven ex-lovers who form “The League of Evil Exes.” Each one wants Scott dead, and he must fight to the death in order to win Ramona.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is really creative and funny. The most overt element to this movie is all the video game references. It’s not based on a video game, but the flashy visuals and sound effects make lots of references to video games and anime. We’re talking back when video games were good; Super Nintendo-style video games, not X-Box 360 junk. It’s almost like a movie based off of an action video game about dating. The fight scenes resemble the Street Fighter video game and Dragon Ball Z episodes. Scott’s pick up lines involve facts about Pac-Man. At one point, Scott even gets a “1-Up.” The social parody in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is hilarious enough on its own, but all the video game-isms rack up the humor and style by several notches.

Another neat thing about this movie is all the subcultures that appear in it. Independent musicians, vegans, video gamers, skaters, the LGTB community, and hipsters all make appearances in this movie. But unlike most comedies that crack jokes at the expense of such subcultures, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World doesn’t put down or mock anyone. For example, one of the evil exes is vegan, and being vegan gives him psychic superpowers. Chris Evans plays Lucas Lee, another evil ex, who is a “pretty good” skateboarder turned “pretty good” action movie star. Every skater I’ve met seems to treat their board as an extension of themselves, and Lucas uses his ever-present skateboard not only to do stunts, but also as a weapon. Every subculture in this movie is depicted as a normal part of society, not a bizarre thing to be mocked.

The pacing is a bit slow, despite the constant action. Nevertheless, it remains entertaining and fun to watch. The story gets a little repetitive, though. It’s a series of fights with evil exes with scenes of amusing romantic awkwardness linking them together. That’s not to say it’s bad, it just falls into a predictable pattern about half way through the movie. There’s some impressive cinematography and fight-scene choreography. They do some really neat things with the lighting. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was written and directed by Edgar Wright. He also did Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Hot Fuzz (2007), which are both great comedy movies. Wright really does an impressive job with the writing and direction of this movie.

Music plays a strong role in the movie. I’m of the opinion that there hasn’t been any good music released in well over a decade. Most of the music didn’t appeal to me. A lot of it sounded like music a group of amateur teenagers might put together in their mom’s garage. Incidentally, that’s kind of what the band members in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World were doing. So the music fit well into the movie. They also convinced Nintendo to let them use some classic tunes from The Legend of Zelda video game series, which was hilariously implemented.

If you enjoy classic video games, anime, or have ever had relationship problems, you’ll find something to enjoy in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. It’s refreshing in its lack of pretension and lack of smirking irony. Depending on your age you could probably interpret it as a postmodern epic for the Nintendo generation or a statement on modern youth detachment from actual human emotions though the advent of technology. Young adults and teens that grew up with Nintendo (like I did) will probably get a huge kick out of this movie. Older adults might become irritated with the flashy visuals and constant dialogue about the modern dating scene. It has become a cult classic in only a couple of years and is a great cinema spectacle to behold. I recommend seeing it.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World seems to be the first of a “video game” movie genre; not actually based on a specific video game, but is designed to look like a video game. The upcoming Wreck-It Ralph movie looks like it will be similar. Do you think video game movies like these will become a legitimate movie genre? Why or why not? Comment below and tell me why!

The Avengers Movie Review

Ever since the post credits scene at the end of Iron Man (2008) where Nick Fury discusses “The Avengers Initiative”, Marvel fans have been anticipating an Avengers movie. There was a five-movie build up to this event, including two Iron Man movies (2008, 2010), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Thor (2010) and Captain America: The First Avenger (2011). Having already built a fandom around these characters, we have high expectations for Joss Whedon’s Superhero mash-up, The Avengers (2012). Even with our expectations set so high, they are still exceeded by this movie.

S.H.I.E.L.D. is a global peacekeeping espionage organization, with  Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) as its director. Exiled Norse god Loki (Tom Hiddleston) infiltrates S.H.I.E.L.D. and steals The Tesseract, and item of immense power that S.H.I.E.L.D. has been protecting. Loki has formed an alien army and will use the limitless power of the Tesseract to open a portal across the galaxy to bring them here and destroy Earth. Fury instigates The Avengers Initiative to gather the superheroes he has contacted over the past several years to help S.H.I.E.L.D.  protect Earth should the world stand in dire need. These heroes include Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) who can transform into The Hulk; genius billionaire playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and his mechanical battle suit he which dons to become Iron Man; Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), who is the iconic World War II symbol Captain America; the Norse god Thor (Chris Hemsworth) returns to Earth to aid in stopping his adoptive brother Loki; and two S.H.I.E.L.D. operatives Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) codenamed Black Widow and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) codenamed Hawkeye.  But The Avengers are divided over how to approach Loki and the revelation that S.H.I.E.L.D. plans to harness the Tesseract to develop weapons. The team of superpowers must overcome their differences and combine forces to stop the immanent global threat.

Traditionally, the term “Epic Film” meant that a movie had a large scale, huge cast, sweeping scope, high budget, and often a run time that exceeds two hours. Some examples include Schindler's List (1993), Ben-Hur (1959), and Saving Private Ryan (1998). Recently, movie studios decided that dividing up an Epic into multiple shorter films makes the franchise last longer and earns the studios more money. That’s part of the reason for The Lord of the Rings to have been divided up into three movies, and the whole reason Quentin Tarantino’s epic Kill Bill (2003, 2004) was divided into two films. The five movies leading up to The Avengers were overlapping stories culminating in this one movie. With the dramatic combination of superpowers and a huge scale, I think it’s arguable that The Avengers and its related films could be considered an Epic by the traditional meaning of the term.

There were a few things I was worried would happen with The Avengers. I was concerned that the movie would rely on the assumption that the viewer has seen the five movies leading up to it and throw our heroes at us without bothering to develop them as characters. I was worried each of these characters were simply going to accept each other and rush off to fight the villain without question. I was also worried that only one or two of our heroes were going to get a bulk of the screen time. That would have been some seriously sloppy writing. I am deliriously happy to say that none of that happened! Joss Whedon co-wrote and directed The Avengers, and he is well known for his multi-character driven stories.

Each of our heroes has dynamic personalities and values; they don’t always see eye to eye, and they don’t trust each other. There’s a three-way fight early on between Iron Man and Thor. Each one exhibits some amazing feats, and even when Captain America tries intervene, you can’t decide who to root for most. Seeing these superheroes fight and their personalities clash makes them all the more interesting. Each character is developed enough for us to be emotionally invested in them; we know what they are capable of, we know what their strengths and weaknesses are, and we want to see them pushed to their limits! We are not left disappointed.

Every good hero needs a good villain; the nastier and more devious the villain, the more interesting the conflict. Loki returns after his defeat in Thor. He wants revenge and he wants to strike Thor where it would hurt the most: by enslaving Earth which Thor has come to love. Once the manipulative Loki sets his plan in motion, you can’t imagine how he could possibly be stopped. He is an outstanding villain who uses power and leverage to get what he wants. When he kills, he makes it meaningful and personal. He lies, manipulates, and is positively cruel to others. You just love to hate this villain, and you want to see him get it in the end.

The Avengers doesn’t shy away from showing us the kind of high end superhero action we want to see. We’re given gorgeously clear action that is over the top and amazing. We are held at the edge of our seat for a lot of the movie. Every character gets some great dialogue and humorous lines. The visual effects are brilliant. There is one scene later on that has a long, sweeping shot where the camera snakes around and over buildings showing us our heroes smack down enemies in their own distinct style in one dynamic swoop. There is so much energy and excitement packed into the camera work, the script, and the characters you can’t help but get caught up in the movie.

To summarize this movie in one word, it is “satisfying.” It shows us what we were expecting to see, and then goes several steps beyond that. You will applaud and cheer for your favorite heroes. You will be captivated by the action. You will be highly satisfied with this movie. There are a couple of minor parts of the story that seemed a bit too easily resolved; but you can forgive it because it pales in comparison to the good qualities in the film. The Avengers is fun, funny, exciting, and so satisfying. You really must see this in the theaters if you’ve ever liked Marvel superheroes or superhero movies at all. It’s an epic movie that you really should be a part of. You don’t necessarily need to see the five movies that built up to The Avengers, but you’d be doing yourself a disservice by missing them. Go see it in theaters as soon as you can, and then buy a copy of it on Blu-ray when it’s available. You can bet I will.

If The Avengers were to assemble again for another movie, what Marvel villain would you love to see them pitted against? Comment below and tell me why!

Movie Review: Captain America: The First Avenger

Marvel Studios has been busy as a bee since 2008, introducing a variety of Super Hero characters. Each character has their own movie, and some even have multiple movies. We have two Iron Man movies, a Hulk movie, a Thor movie, and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) has appeared in all of these movies to varying degrees. There’s even a third Iron Man and a second Thor movie in the works. Any comic book geek with knowledge of the Marvel universe could see what was coming after the post-credits scene in Iron Man (2008).  Nick Fury showed up telling Tony Stark (Iron Man) that he’s not the world’s only super hero and wanted to discuss the "Avenger Initiative". The last of The Avengers team that hadn’t shown up yet was Captain America. I didn’t think Captain America’s story would be hard to do, but it might be tricky to do well. But after seeing how well a Norse god became relatable, I felt confident and ready to see Captain America: The First Avenger (2011).

The year is 1942; World War II is in full swing and the United States has entered the fray. Thousands of young men are volunteering to join the army to serve their country. One among them is Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), a short, ninety-five pound asthmatic with a heart of gold who has just been rejected yet again for military service. Rogers’ life changes dramatically after encountering Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) at a recruitment center. Dr. Erskine is impressed with Rogers and recruits him for the top secret “Project Rebirth.” After proving his extraordinary courage, intellect, and morals, Rogers undergoes a Super Soldier experiment conducted by Dr. Erskine and Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) that transforms his weak frame into a body at the peak of human strength and potential. Dr. Erskine is immediately assassinated by an agent of Nazi Germany’s secret research department, HYDRA, which is operated by Johann Schmidt, also known as The Red Skull (Hugo Weaving). Schmidt has been using an object of remarkable power called the “tesseract,” believed to have come from the Norse God Odin’s throne room, to create space age weapons and supply Nazi Germany with an unlimited energy-source for world domination. Rogers is deemed too valuable to be put on the front lines and is misused initially as a propaganda mascot. However, when his comrades who had previously enlisted need his help, Rogers springs into action to aid them and truly becomes Captain America, the hero, not just the symbol. This is where Captain America’s war against the Red Skull truly begins.

My biggest concern with this movie was that the character Captain America would be portrayed as a gung-ho, pro-America, nationalist, which seems to be the extent of modern day patriotism. Thankfully, this was not so. Captain America: The First Avenger (directed by Joe Johnston) has something to say about patriotism and where the true strength of America lies. This aspect of the character and plot was not played up quite as much as I was expecting, but it was not belittled or avoided as I had feared. Steve Rogers did not join the military out of a sense of vengeance or bravado as many of his comrades had. He joined out of a sense of justice and a desire to protect the oppressed. This was depicted in an exchange between pre-Super Soldier Rogers and Dr. Erskine. Erskine asks, “Do you want to kill Nazis?” to which Rogers replies without hesitation, “I don't want to kill anybody. I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from.”

We’re shown the other side of war where patriotism can be used as propaganda. Initially Steve Rogers is given a rather eccentric costume after the Super Soldier experiment so that he can help promote the war and sell it to the American public. He is given an embarrassingly simple script to recite about buying war bonds while a line of dancing women are singing pro-America jingles. This ends badly with Captain America throwing a fake punch at a stage actor portraying Adolf Hitler. Rogers is clearly uncomfortable with this and desires to take a more active and useful role in stopping the Nazi bullies. This really is the type of simplified gung-ho nationalist-like patriotism that the character Captain America is not about and I appreciated that they made this distinction in the movie.

In most movies, especially superhero movies, they spare no time in having the newly empowered hero confront the villain and dive headlong into the action scenes. Not so in this movie.Captain America: The First Avenger really spends time developing the Captain America character. This really is an origin story that develops the character at his heart; the movie is more character driven than action driven. There is an action “montage” rather than lots of fighting scenes. This was used to depict Captain America’s multiple successes and shield-smacking victories before getting into the bigger, more plot-specific battles. But don’t worry; when the action arrives it’s really good; I was on the edge of my seat for many of the scenes. There were even a couple of moments during the action scenes that were unexpected and a bit shocking, such as a henchmen meeting a grotesque demise by a propeller.

All the characters were fun and well developed. Steve Rogers’ flame, Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), was interesting, pretty, confident, and independent. Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) was gruff, practical, logical, and helped push Rogers’ to his best potential. Howard Stark (who is the father of the not yet born Tony Stark; Iron Man) is a lady killer, arrogant, creative, and resourceful. All these characters play off of each other really well. No one character is given a bulk of the humorous lines which was a somewhat mediocre device done in Thor (2011).

My only real complaint was the Red Skull. Every good hero needs a good villain; the nastier and more devious the villain, the more interesting the conflict. The Red Skull seemed to be lacking in purpose. He seemed to simply want to take over and destroy the world for the sake of taking over and destroying the world. It was almost as though all the lackluster qualities of a generic throw-away villain were stuffed into what is ordinarily an iconic super villain from the Marvel Comics universe. I have heard Red Skull is supposed to possess a superior intellect and inventive genius, as well as being a highly gifted subversive strategist and political operative. We did see some creative genius as he made ray guns and all manner of sci-fi gadgets with 1940’s technology. But you don’t get a feel for his intellect, political machinations, or strategic plotting. The Red Skull as a character is just about the only major character that seemed flat, generic, and undeveloped. He fills the role of “nasty, ugly villain” quite well, but his depiction in this film just seemed cliché. I can overlook this shortcoming a bit since Captain America is the main focus and there needed to be a struggle over which he could prevail. Such a struggle allows us to see what Captain America is made of and ultimately understand his part in the upcoming Avengers movie.

As opposed to the excruciating Captain America movie that came out in 1990 (trailer here) which, with good reason, no one seems to remember, Captain America: The First Avenger really was a fun movie with a good, fairly solid story. The movie demonstrates the message that patriotism is not about strength. It is about compassion and justice. Patriotism is not about how loud you cheer for your country or how many bad guys you kill. It is about how much you are willing to sacrifice to protect the helpless. Those are real patriotic American values. I enjoyed this movie enough that I intend to get a copy of it on Blu-Ray for my personal collection when it becomes available. This movie will be pretty intense for younger audiences, but it might be worth the effort to show them once they can handle some intense action scenes. Captain America is a hero of good morals and character that would be good to help them model in their own lives.