Antboy Review

I keep seeing this superhero title appear on Netflix. It looks delightfully ridiculous, and I finally got around to seeing it. Not to be confused with Marvel's Ant-Man which hit theaters last year, Antboy (2013) is a low-budget, kid-friendly Danish superhero film which has a bizarre charm, a few worthwhile laughs, and tons of geeky comic book references. I can't honestly call it good, but it is enjoyable in a strange sort of way.

12-year-old Pelle Nøhrmann (Oscar Dietz) is bitten by a genetically altered ant and develops superpowers. Aided by comic book nerd Wilhelm (Samuel Ting Graf), Pelle creates a secret identity as superhero Antboy. When a super villain, The Flea, (Nicolas Bro) enters the scene, Antboy must step up to the challenge.

One of the charming things about Antboy is that it's very kid-centered. Many of the contemporary superhero movies revolve around adult-themes which are interesting, but not things kids could relate to so much. For example, Tony Stark in Iron Man is constantly having to deal with the problems of running a multi-million dollar tech industry and stopping government interference. Scott Lang in Ant-Man is basically trying to get a job and earn custody of his daughter before getting mixed up in superhero stuff. Clark Kent in Man of Steel is searching for a sense of identity and moral restraint. These are more grown-up issues which give these superheroes depth. Pelle is simply trying to fit in at school, make a friend, and maybe earn the affection of the prettiest girl in school. The kid's only 12, and has a good, healthy home life. Making friends, gaining popularity, and maybe getting a girl's attention is about as deep as most 12-year-old's issues get under such circumstances. But at the same time, that's the kind of thing kids are concerned with. It makes this kid-focused story relatable to the kid-targeted audience. There's an amusing scene early in the movie where Pelle enacts his superhero fantasies with stuffed animals, which is another kid-thing you'll never see the likes of Batman doing. Humorously, the comic book style "sound effects" that appear on screen as Pelle fights his teddy bear heralds back to Adam West's Batman.

This is a Danish film, and the version streaming on Netflix is dubbed in English. That's helpful since I doubt younger kids could read subtitles fast enough to keep up with the dialogue. However, even though I prefer subtitled movies in their original language, I imagine anyone would find the dubbing in Antboy annoying. Not so much because the dialogue is out of sync with lip movement, but because the English voice actors are pretty bland. They seem bored at times and their vocal inflections seemed a bit off, given what the actor was doing or saying; such as sounding more excited or subdued than what the actor was emoting. Annoying as the dubbing was at times, it still gave the movie a weird sort of charm.

Marvel's Ant-Man character has the ability to shrink down to ant size, has super strength, and can control/communicate with ants. For more on why that actually is cool, go read my Ant-Man review. Antboy, however, has powers that sound more along the lines of what one would expect from a superhero who has "ant powers." He can bite through just about anything, has an incredible sense of smell, can lift fifty times his own weight, and can crawl on walls. Since ants excrete corrosive fluids, Antboy has also gained the ability to urinate acid. He pees on a door to get through it at one point. Sadly, there will not be a scene wherein Antboy tactically pees on a foe; it's a PG film after all. But Antboy's powers are finite; since they are fueled by sugary foods. As such, Antboy's utility belt is stuffed full of soda and candy bars; another humorously kid-centric idea. There's a scene later in the movie where Antboy has to break into a vending machine and chug all the sweets therein to continue fighting his arch-nemesis.

Antboy is very safely in the realm of PG. The violence that occurs in the movie happens largely off-screen; no punches or anything else land on camera. Antboy himself deals out no physical violence. However since this is a foreign film it features a few things that are not something you'd ordinarily see in American films. The kid peeing acid for example. I mean, we see nothing other than a urine stream, but urinating is something that is implied in US films, not shown. Also, when we learn about The Flea and his history and powers it's a bit on the dark side. It's not unlike supervillain clichés we all know and love, but it's a bit dark for a PG-rated kid movie. Nevertheless, I wouldn't have any issues with showing Antboy to young kids. I'd be curious to see how they'd like it.

Antboy is a lot like a low-budget retread of Spider-Man on the surface, but is a bit off-kilter on some details, leaving one pleasantly baffled. The kid-friendly drama is overall pretty lame, but the execution is amusing, awkward, and charming in its own way. It's a considerable shlock-fest, but it's kind of a fun shlock-fest. The acting (and voice dubbing) might be substandard, but it looks like the crew probably had a fun time making Antboy and they achieved what they set out to do; make a wacky, kid-friendly superhero movie that doesn't take itself too seriously. I probably won't go out of my way to see it again, but I enjoyed it for what it was worth. It's not a bad way to spend a little over an hour if you have Netflix's streaming service.

Antboy seems to have done well for itself. There is a sequel that was made and a third installment is due out later this year. I'll be on the lookout for those.

Can you think of other good Independent superhero movies that aren't big-budget films based on well established comic books? Comment below and tell me about it!

Fantastic Four Review (2015)

In order to remind us that Fox owns the film rights to a couple of Marvel series, a reboot of the Fantastic Four (2015) was made. Fox still has movie rights to X-Men, as well. If not for the last two amazing X-Men movies, I'd say Disney is the only one that does Marvel movies right anymore. This is the fourth attempt at a Fantastic Four movie, including 1994 movie that never got released. Sooner or later Fox will have to accept they can't do a Fantastic Four movie that's worth seeing, and  it would probably be better in the hands of another studio. Perhaps this cinema atrocity will put them on the right path.

Transported to another dimension, four young outsiders gain superhuman powers which alter their physical form in shocking ways. Reed Richards (Miles Teller) becomes able to stretch and twist his body, while Reed's friend Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell) gains immense strength and a rock-like body. Johnny Storm (Michael B. Jordan) is able to control and project fire, while his sister Sue (Kate Mara) can become the invisible and generate force-fields. Together, the team must harness their new abilities to battle former colleague, Victor von Doom (Toby Kebbell) who poses a threat to Earth.

Really, that simple synopsis is everything that happens in this one hour and forty-six minute movie. They spend a lot of time showing us montages of the group creating an interdimensional transport, broken up with token bits of poorly done, awkward character development. Then they go to another dimension for a little while and acquire some powers. Then Doctor Doom shows up when the group attempts a second expedition and then they have to fight him. That's literally everything that happens. The first fight scene in this action movie is at the climax at the end! This might be the most boring and uneventful super hero movie to date.

I appreciate the fact that they were trying to get this new version of the Fantastic Four to be more character driven and more realistic on some level, but the result was so sloppy and poorly written. Compounding that with the fact that it takes itself very seriously makes it hard to enjoy. I understand that in the world of comic book based movies you have to allow for a certain level of whimsy, but so many plot devices and character abilities were left unexplained. As an example of these infractions, just because you can fly, your body can be engulfed in flame, and you can throw fire balls, doesn't really mean you have the strength or physical structure to smash through colossal stone pillars like Superman might. Why is this weird radiation energy from another dimension able to alter people's physiology, and why does it grant someone powers who had never gone to that other dimension? Why do they need space suits to traverse the other dimension early in the movie, but not later? Most of that could be explained with one or two lines of dialogue, but that wasn't bothered with.

One of the fun things about superhero movies is seeing our protagonists discover their newfound abilities. I love watching Tobey Maguire learn about his new powers in the first Spider-Man movie, or Tony Stark try to perfect his Iron Man suit. It's even funny watching Thor having to acclimate to a lack of powers he's always had. That scene was completely lacking in Fantastic Four. Our heroes make it back to our dimension unconscious, but exhibiting signs of their powers. Then we get a slow fade to black and a caption that says "One year later" and we catch up with everyone who has basically mastered their abilities by this point. It felt like we were being cheated of crucial character development and potential for humor. We didn't even get to see much of their reactions to new powers, let alone them trying to figure them out. It's stunts like this that made the movie much worse than it should have been.

There were several annoying changes made to the characters, some of which are really going to upset Marvel fans. Reed Richards is the most intelligent person in the Marvel Universe, and a couple of times, Victor erases and corrects Reed's calculations during a montage. An often critical device when fighting Doctor Doom in the comic books is that Reed is one of the few people that can outsmart him, but we're just going to ignore that, apparently. Doctor Doom was really bad, though. Doctor Doom's powers include technological manipulation and some mystical abilities like energy projectiles and creating protective shields. In this movie, he's psychic, telekinetic, can open gateways to other dimensions, can convert matter into energy, and can control rocks and apparently some weather. He just walks down the hall, and people die without him lifting a finger or even looking in their direction. Not only does he look too far off from what he is in the comic books, his powers and personality are so off the mark that he's basically not Doctor Doom at all. They don't even call him Doctor Doom in this movie, just "Doom" maybe once or twice. Doctor Doom is as far from his source material in Fantastic Four as Deadpool was in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and that disgraceful depiction of Deadpool made everyone furious!

I'd like to say that the graphics are at least good, and occasionally they were. There's a scene where Reed is trying to squeeze out of some constraints, and you see the muscles in his arm working even though his arm is stretched out. When you see him try to pull out of the constraints, still with his arm stretched, you can see his skin bunch up around the bands as he tries to free himself. Some things like that were pretty impressive. But there were other bits that were so lacking in refinement they may as well have come from a Sy-Fi Channel television movie, like Sharknado.

This latest Fantastic Four movie fails everything essential to make a good superhero movie. Good superhero movies need exciting action, colorful thrills, enticing visual effects, a few laughs, and characters we can relate to, root for, and watch grow and develop. Fantastic Four literally has none of that available. The story is extremely boring and slow. The first fight scene is at the end of the movie, for crying out loud! The characters aren't even likeable and are changed for the sake of the movie in all the wrong ways. The camera work was sloppy, transitions between scenes were often awkward and confusing, and the script is just terrible. The previous Fantastic Four movies were better than this, and that's saying something. This is the worst superhero movie I've seen since Daredevil or Elektra. I implore you not to see this in theaters; if this ends up as anything more than a box office bomb, Fox will just try to make a sequel. If for some reason you truly want to see this movie, wait for it on Redbox or something. It's certainly not worth the price of a movie ticket, and barely worth what you might spend to rent it.

Okay, what is the worst superhero movie you've ever seen? Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, any comic book series that has had a movie based on it. Comment below and let me know!

Chef Review

Jon Favreau initially started as an indie film favorite actor and director. He moved on to bigger and better things, but recently came back to doing independent films. His most recent endeavor was Chef (2014). This was a lot of fun on its own, but if you know what to look for, you can view it as a tongue-in-cheek autobiography of sorts. That aspect aside, Chef is a good solid film that I thoroughly enjoyed.

Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) is an acclaimed chef with a family life that seems as decaying as his artistic freedom. Those frustrations boil over into a raucous viral-videoed public confrontation against a restaurant critic (Oliver Platt) who panned his cooking of food that his boss (Dustin Hoffman) ordered him to make against his instincts. Now with his career ruined, Carl's ex-wife, Inez (Sofía Vergara) offers an unorthodox solution in Miami: refit an old food truck to offer quality cooking on his own terms. Now with his young son, Percy (Emjay Anthony), and old colleague, Martin (John Leguizamo), helping, Carl takes a working trip across America with that truck to rediscover his gastronomic passion. With Percy's social media tech savvy and Martin's enthusiasm, Carl finds that he is creating a traveling sensation on the way home. In doing so, Carl discovers he is serving up more than simply food, but also a deeper connection with his life and his family that is truly delicious in its own way.

We have Jon Favreau to thank for getting the Marvel Cinematic Universe rolling. He directed the first two Iron Man movies. If that first Iron Man movie hadn't as amazing as it was, there wouldn't have been additional Marvel movies and we never would have got to The Avengers and other fantastic films. As I'd suggested in my Age of Ultron review, Marvel seems to be constraining and limiting its directors. In the case of Favreau, he was flat out replaced as the director for the third Iron Man movie. I don't know if that was specifically why he didn't direct the third movie, but I'm inclined to think so. It was an influence, at least.

At any rate, Favreau got a big thing going but stopped to return to indie films where he would have more flexibility and creativity with less influence from studio executives controlling his creative process. This was similar to Carl stepping down from a nice restaurant to work in a food truck. Favreau said he also worked comparisons to Carl and himself, such as being a father while having a busy career and coming from a broken home. I get the impression that Chef was a kind of therapeutic means of self expression for Favreau; and I wish more celebrity therapy would result in excellent films like this.

The cast was fantastic in this movie. You can tell that Favreau, himself, threw his whole heart into the role and into the production. Leguizamo was a lot of fun as well, playing an optimist who was both laid back and a hard worker at the same time. This is the first time I've seen child actor Emjay Anthony on screen. His is quite talented for a kid actor; only once or twice did his acting falter, but only by a little bit. Some of Favreau's other actor friends were involved in small roles. For example, this was the second time Favreau, Robert Downy, Jr. and Scarlet Johansson all worked together on a project directed by Favreau. The cast was simply outstanding, and created some highly relatable and likable characters.

The food in Chef was just as important as the characters themselves. And it was positively gorgeous to look at. Watching things simmer, melt, sear, roast, and cook was delightful. Then seeing the succulent meats sliced, and exceedingly fancy dishes prepared was titillating. The food photography was every bit as tantalizing and fascinating as it was in The Hundred-Foot Journey and Julie & Julia. You will probably be famished by the time you're done watching this movie. Even if you aren't intrigued by the main plot, you won't be able to take your eyes away from the amazing food on the screen.

Chef is rated R for language. There are very few characters who don't work in the kitchen at one point or another during the movie. And having worked in a kitchen myself, I know how stressful, frantic, and fast-paced everything often is. Profanity abounds as part of the job. Having said that, the profanity seems perfectly at home in the scenes where it is used. Currently, a PG-13 movie can get away with no more than two F-bombs. Truly the only reason Chef has an R rating is because there are more than two F-bombs. I think it's reasonably applied to the situations and characters, so I don't view it as being bad. It's just maybe not something you would want to play in the presence of impressionable children.

Whatever you do, don't go see Chef on an empty stomach. It's a feel-good foodie film that will have you salivating within minutes. Whether it is an artistic statement or self-justification of film craft, Chef confirms the core talent of Jon Favreau. It's comfort-food-meets-comfort-movie. Favreau wrote, directed, and starred in this excellent film on a smaller scale than his previous films, but this is by no means a film of a poorer quality. The story is a modern telling of a familiar feel-good formula, but it's an excellent example of that formula. As of writing this, it is available to watch streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend seeing it, just not on an empty stomach. I liked Chef well enough to want a copy on my movie shelves.

Can you think of another simi-autobiographical movie like Chef where the movie makes indirect comparison to its writer/director? Comment below and tell me about it!

Iron Man 3 Movie Review

It's no secret that The Avengers was a phenomenal success. It wasn't originally intended, but it was quickly decided upon to do another Avengers movie. But before that can happen, we need another couple of movies to showcase our heroes' having individual adventures before teaming up again. Iron Man 3 (2013) is the first movie of the second string of movies leading up to another Avengers movie.

In light of the alien invasion in New York (in The Avengers), Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is suffering from panic attacks. To set himself at ease, he has built several dozen new Iron Man suits, which has created some friction with his girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Several mysterious bombings have occurred around the country over the last several months which mysteriously leave no forensic evidence. These have been orchestrated by a man calling himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), and the attacks are becoming more intense. Meanwhile a Dr. Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) is trying to team up with Stark Industries to perfect a super-soldier bio-chemical solution called Extremis, which should grant super-healing abilities.  After drawing the attention of The Mandarin, Tony Stark's safe world and everything he has is virtually destroyed. Tony's friend, Colonel James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) the former War Machine, now re-branded as the Iron Patriot, is sent on a wild goose chase to find The Mandarin. With his back against the wall, Tony is left to survive by his own devices, relying on his ingenuity and instincts to protect those closest to him.

I'm so glad that Iron Man 3 acknowledges events from The Avengers. In a short amount of time Tony Stark discovered the existence of powerful gods and alien threats as they both descended to attack Earth. Yes, The Avengers did save the day, but having symptoms of PTSD and panic attacks is not an unreasonable reaction to the ordeal. In a desperate moment, Tony pours his heart out to Pepper, "Nothing's been the same since New York. You experience things, and then they're over. I can't sleep, and when I do I have nightmares. Threat is eminent. I have to protect the one thing that I can't live without. That's you." This is simply the next logical step in the character's development, and it's done well.

Iron Man 3 has a darker tone than the previous two. Tony is at a very low point since nearly everything that makes him Iron Man has been taken away. It deals with some very real and sometimes scary issues; terrorist attacks, the impact on the families of the victims, foreboding insecurity, and mental breakdowns to name a few. But at the same time, Tony's character is a narcissist and rather than deal with traumatic or uncomfortable situations, he deflects it with humor. Iron Man 3 is pretty funny. With the dark nature and the comedy, it makes for some strange tonal contrasts. It didn't always fit perfectly, but I think it did work; it never sounded like sloppy writing that was trying to do too many things at once.

There is a HUGE plot twist halfway through the movie. I really want to talk about it, but to avoid spoilers I won't. I will say that it's probably going to irritate hardcore Marvel fans a whole lot. I was always a fan of Spider-Man and X-Men myself, and I have virtually no concept of Iron Man mythos. While it did take my be surprise, I could easily see long-time fans of Iron Man getting immensely bent out of shape by this plot device. Hopefully it won't cause anyone to boycott any future Iron Man movies or anything like that. I still thought the movie was good.

I can't review Iron Man 3 without talking about the effects. It's a special effects intensive movie with lots of CGI work and is so remarkably well done. Most of the mechanical suits are done with CGI. But it's so detailed, moves so naturally, and the lighting is so perfect you'd hardly guess there wasn't a real large metal suit running around. The final fight at the end is amazing. It's full of crazy Iron Man stunts that I never would have expected. It's hard not to cheer Tony on as he dukes it out. 

Iron Man 3 was great. It had logical progressions in character development, a darker tone, lots of laughs, incredible effects, a pretty good story, and some fun references to the other Avengers. That plot twist will throw you for a loop, though; it will make or break the movie for some Marvel fans. I managed to roll with the punches since I had no preconceived notions. Iron Man 3 is worth catching on the big screen and worth getting a copy on Blu-Ray once it's available. Also, make sure you stick around after the credits for a hilarious post-credits scene, as per Marvel movie tradition.

Boromir tells it like it is.

So, we have three Iron Man movies. Technically four, if you include The Avengers. Which one is your favorite? Comment below and tell me why!

Enthiran Movie Review

A couple of years ago I saw a YouTube video about some crazy action scenes from a movie made in India. Several segments looked like they were trying to imitate visual effects from a number of big budget American movies. Recently I found the movie where these clips were from. It seems to have two titles depending on the language version; Enthiran (2010) if the language is Tamil or Robot when it is in Hindi.

Dr. Vasi (Rajnikanth) invents a super-powerful robot in his own image named Chitti (also played by Rajnikanth). The Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Institute (AIRD), the scientific body that must approve the robot, declines it based on its not having emotions and the ability to make rational judgment. A spontaneous bolt of lightning that hits Chitti evokes emotions in the robot, and he is seemingly ready for integration into the human world. But Chitti falls in love with Dr. Vasi's fiancée, Sana (Aishwarya Rai Bachchan), and turns on his creator. Vasi's mentor, Dr. Bohra (Danny Denzongpa), has been trying for years to construct a functional robot for military purposes. After Vasi's success with Chitti, Bohra seeks out Chitti to turn him into a killing machine.

  Before I get into the review, I have to make a disclaimer. I'm not well-versed in Indian cinema; I don't think I've seen an entire Bollywood movie before Enthiran. I also don't speak Tamil, so I had to watch a subtitled copy of Enthiran and it didn't display the most nuanced grasp of the English language. I therefore don't feel like I have grounds to criticize the dialogue as I'm sure things have been lost in translation.

Enthiran is more than a wacky viral video, it's the most expensive and highest grossing film in Indian history. This is like the Avatar of Indian Cinema. There are tons of practical special effects and CGI animation, the likes of which have not been seen in Indian cinema before. Enthiran has a star-studded cast; Rajnikanth is often billed in his movies as "SUPERSTAR Rajni," and is the second highest paid actor in Asia after Jackie Chan. Aishwarya Rai is a former Miss India and Miss World pageant winner, and is often credited to be "most beautiful woman in the world." Enthiran is a big deal, yet Western audiences will primarily be familiar with it through a 10-minute YouTube clip that they chuckled at and forgot about.

The CGI and special effects are impressive on the one hand, but still looks a bit like the quality of CGI work that appears in a direct to DVD movie here in the United States. They also seem to try to mimic some American movie effects. Before his "skin" is put on, Chitti resembles the robots in I, Robot. There are dozens of identical robots swarming in attack similar to Agent Smith in The Matrix Reloaded. There's an exciting train fight scene similar to the one in Spider-Man 2. Chitti gets shot in the eye, imitating Schwarzenegger's iconic Terminator look. There's some subtle nods to The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man effects, and even a big Transformers type giant robot attack. These are the types of over-the-top action scenes that were showcased in the YouTube video, but I can assure you that seeing Enthiran in its entirety gives it a lot more context and credibility within its world setting. If nothing else, seeing the whole movie will give you some more CGI craziness to enjoy.

There's going to be a lot of cultural gaps between Indian and American cinema that's going to give Western viewers a sense of scurrility when watching Enthiran. The movie focuses a whole lot in the chaste romance between Vasi and Sana. It was almost weird seeing such chastity between romantic partners in a big movie like this; even the villain was intent on marrying Sana before daring to have sex with her. There's a scene where Chitti rescues a young woman from a burning building. She's naked from taking a bath and her body is blurred out. For some reason having your life saved while not fully dressed is deeply shameful. I didn't understand that; yeah, I'd rather have clothes on, but I'd be more concerned about dying. It's just an example of cultural gaps that didn't quite make sense to me.

Another part of Enthiran that I thought was surreal was the periodic music video breaks. When I was in theater we did a Broadway musical once and had an Indian man in the audience. He thought it was unusual to have the characters break into song while remaining in character. He explained to us that in Indian theater (and I have to assume movies by extension) the actors go out of character to sing, get back into character, and continue with the story. There were about three or four points during Enthiran where the story simply stops and suddenly Rajinikanth and Rai are in a completely different location  and they are dancing and singing about love and romance. That scene ends and we return to the story. They act like music video segues but the songs are only loosely related to what's happening in the story. They drag on for at least five minutes and really disrupt the pacing of the movie. They are really neat to watch, though; they feature beautiful cinematography, sets, and music. I have yet to hear contemporary Indian music that I don't enjoy.

Enthiran is a very long movie, about three hours. This is pretty normal for Indian movies, but if you don't take a break and pause during the intermission, your butt will be asleep well before the end credits. There is so much crammed into Enthiran that chances are you will find something to enjoy, be it the glitzy music videos, the over the top action, special effects, or the out of sorts Three Stooges-style slapstick humor. There's certainly some weird scenes, like when Chitti has a conversation with a mosquito, and the movie sets itself up for sarcastic quips and riffing. If you don't particularly enjoy foreign films, I'd stay away from this one. It's lengthy, somewhat demanding (in keeping up with subtitles), and has a modest pay-off. If you do enjoy Bollywood films, elaborate costumes and dance numbers, killer robots, and physical humor gags, Enthiran is something not to be missed.

Here's the YouTube clip so you can see some of the over the top action sequences:

What's the strangest foreign film you've ever seen? Was it still good? Comment below and tell me all about it!

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!