Luke Cage: Season 1 Review

“How about we grab some coffee?”

(SPOILER WARNING!)

Ghost in the Shell (1995) review

Well, here we are; my first major review of an anime... outside of my review of the first season of Pokémon and the two ‘Strange Moments’ posts that I did about the show (spoilers: maybe a third one in the future; stay tuned!). I’ll admit that I usually don’t watch a lot of anime because simply put, it’s just not really my thing. Like I said, my experience with the genre almost entirely comes through Pokémon. For the record, though, it’s easy to see why this genre has been so popular with film fans. Franchises like Cowboy Bebop, Akira, and Dragon Ball Z have attracted considerable fanbases over the years and quite a few of these franchises are still going strong today. Some of these anime series were based off manga series, the Japanese form of comics, and arguably one of the most famous manga series of all-time is Ghost in the Shell, created by Masamune Shirow. A new live-action film adaptation of the series, starring Scarlett Johansson in the lead role of cybernetic policewoman ‘The Major’, is set to come out this weekend. But before that, I wanted to check out the original animated film that started it all. Released in 1995, Ghost in the Shell was a big critical and commercial success when it was first released in Japan. It came to the U.S. during a time when anime was slowly starting to enter the mainstream media, a period that many refer to as the ‘Japanimation’ era of anime. It ultimately proved to be quite an influential film for many filmmakers, perhaps most notably the Wachowskis as evident from their iconic 1999 effort, The Matrix. In other words, this is generally regarded as one of the greatest anime films of all-time and after seeing it for the first time, I can see where many of those critics are coming from.   

In the year 2029, society is connected to one large planetary network that humanity accesses via a series of cybernetic bodies known as ‘shells’ that contain their consciousness AKA ‘ghost’, hence the title Ghost in the Shell. One of these beings is Major Motoko Kusanagi (Mimi Woods), who leads an assault team known as Sector 9 that is tasked with dealing with crimes that are tied to the global network. This leads to them going on the hunt for a mysterious hacker known as the ‘Puppet Master’ (Tom Wyner). What follows is a deeply-layered story that explores the divide between humanity and technology along with the definition of one’s identity. The latter is particularly relevant in the characterization of Motoko and her struggle to connect with humanity (e.g. never paying mind to her sexual appearance whenever she unrobes to reveal her skin-tight thermoptic suit). Now, admittedly, this means that the story may end up being a bit too complex for some audiences. Even I’ll admit that, in some ways, I’m one of those people; it’d probably take me a few more viewings to fully grasp all the deep themes within this story that pose questions that lead to vague answers. However, as a casual viewer (and someone who isn’t very familiar with anime), I did find the overall plot to be very engrossing and well-paced at a brisk 82-minute runtime. Another great thing about the film is its animation. It’s an effective mix of traditional animation and CG animation that results in some very striking visuals, from the film’s terrific action sequences to subtle touches like the fact that Motoko rarely blinks, keeping in line with her characterization as a cyborg. In short, the original Ghost in the Shell is a thought-provoking, mature, and all-around stylish sci-fi action film that clearly still stands as one of the most definitive films of its genre. And while the writing can be complex at times, I can see why some say that this is one of the better films to start with for those who are new to anime.

Rating: 4/5

Power Rangers (2017) review

While I was only around for half of the decade, I do consider myself to be a ‘90’s kid’. And with that said, many ‘90’s kids’ will agree that one of the definitive shows of their childhoods was Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Developed by TV theme song composers Haim Saban and Shuki Levy, the series, which utilized stock footage from Toei’s Super Sentai franchise and repurposed it around an American cast, became a worldwide phenomenon when it debuted in 1993. Nearly 25 years later, the series is still going strong today with new themed iterations debuting every year, and while nowadays some feel that the original series has not aged well because of its cheesy nature, it’s still very much a landmark show of its era. I’ll admit, though, that I wasn’t really a Power Rangers fan growing up, mainly just because the original Mighty Morphin series was already over before I was even a year old. However, because it’s so directly tied to my generation, I was at least interested in seeing the new film reboot of this legendary franchise. And thus, here we are with Power Rangers, the third Power Rangers film released to date after 1995’s Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie and 1997’s Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie. As stated earlier, it serves as a reboot of the original Mighty Morphin series, with a new cast taking on the roles of the original Ranger team. It’s also easily the biggest Power Rangers film to date in terms of its budget and scale. But, of course, this now leads to one big question; will this succeed in appealing to fans of the franchise while also serving as an effective introduction for the uninitiated? Well, for the most part, director Dean Israelite (Project Almanac) does succeed in redefining this franchise for a new generation.  

In the town of Angel Grove, suspended high school quarterback Jason Lee Scott (Dacre Montgomery), autistic nerd Billy Cranston (RJ Cyler), and ousted cheerleader Kimberly Hart (Naomi Scott) begin to bond while being forced to spend time in detention for various incidents that they were involved in at school. One night, the three end up at the local mines where they, along with truant Zack Taylor (Ludi Lin) and new student Trini Kwan (Becky G), come across five mysterious coin-like artifacts trapped within the rocks. After taking them, the five begin to find themselves imbued with new powers, namely superhuman strength. When they return to where they found the coins, they end up in an ancient spaceship buried deep underground. There, they come across Zordon (Bryan Cranston), an ancient being whose consciousness was uploaded into the ship’s matrix by his android assistant Alpha 5 (Bill Hader). Zordon tells them that they have been chosen by the Power Coins that they’ve found to become the Power Rangers, a group of warriors who protect the Earth from those who seek the Zeo Crystal, the source of their power. And, sure enough, one of those threats, former Green Ranger Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks), awakens from her long slumber and plans on rebuilding her monster, Goldar, to find the Zeo Crystal, which Zordon (the former Red Ranger) had buried deep underground millions of years ago when she betrayed their team. With little time to spare before she unleashes her army of monsters upon Angel Grove, the five teens find themselves tasked with trying to band together to become the Rangers and use all their abilities to save their home and their world.  

Overall, this new Power Rangers film does away with many of the campier elements of the original series. Now, for the record, there are still some silly moments here and there (e.g. brace yourself for one ludicrous bit of product placement that literally ends up becoming a major part of the plot) but, overall, the plot is taken more seriously than previous iterations of the franchise. And while this may result in some tonal inconsistencies here and there, like whenever Rita attacks someone in a rather intense manner, the film still manages to capture the feel of the franchise without going completely campy. Plus, with the addition of various nods to the series for eagle-eyed fans to point out, some of which I’m sure I didn’t notice the first time being only a casual fan of the franchise, I think longtime fans will enjoy this new film quite fine. Based on what I’ve seen from the original series, it doesn’t seem like it pulls any major deviations from the source material, aside from new characterizations for the protagonists, that would betray what made the franchise popular in the first place. The big question, though, is how it appeals to newcomers of the franchise. It does so by way of an ‘origin story’. And, yes, I know that this phrase has sort of become a ‘bad word’ amongst filmgoers but here, it is done quite well because it’s about the five teens learning to become the Rangers instead of just being instantly able to do so like in the show. Thus, it ends up sharing a similar aspect with 1997’s Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie in that the teens don’t fully morph into the Rangers until the finale. But in this case, it does work because of their journey beforehand to become the Rangers, instead of just sidelining them in their own film like Turbo did. And once they do get into the suits, the action, which, obviously, is primarily CG-based this time around with an undeniably Transformers vibe to it, is solid.  

As fans of the show know, one of its trademark lines was ‘Teenagers with Attitude’, a phrase uttered by Zordon in the opening credits (though not the show itself) to describe the team. However, in the show, the Rangers were always portrayed as good students and, thus, more like role models and not really ‘teenagers with attitude’. Here, though, they very much emphasize the ‘attitude’ part, showcasing a group of misfits who must come together to become the heroes they’re meant to be. And, like I said before, while the show had them capable of morphing into the Rangers right out the gate, I do like how, in this film, they must work to get to that level. Also, to the filmmakers’ credit, they did pick an excellent group of leads to take on these iconic roles. Granted, some get more attention than others (namely Jason, Kimberly, and Billy, who are the first to be introduced in the film; Zack and Trini don’t come in until they get the Power Coins) but they do have fantastic chemistry with each other. Not bad for a group that’s mostly made up of general newcomers; just goes to show that perhaps Dean Israelite’s greatest strength as a director is working with younger actors/actresses. As for their supporting cast, Bryan Cranston (who notably provided villain voices for the original series and was even the inspiration for the Blue Ranger’s name, Billy Cranston) brings the proper dignified nature to the role of Zordon while Bill Hader provides some enjoyable comic relief in the role of Alpha 5 (“Ai yi yi!”). Finally, there’s Elizabeth Banks as main villain Rita Repulsa; she’s quite over-the-top here, keeping very much in line with the Rita of the original series. It’ll either work for you or it won’t. Personally, it didn’t bother me but maybe that’s because she’s not really in the film that much, as the focus is primarily on the Rangers, which is a good thing.

So, as I stated before, I didn’t grow up with Power Rangers. I did watch some episodes of the show before watching this film (as well as the previous films) and, like I said last time, I probably would’ve loved the show had I watched it as a kid. But, overall, going into this I was a newcomer to the franchise that had gradually become a casual fan once I finally watched some episodes of it. And overall, as a ‘casual fan’ of Power Rangers, I rather enjoyed this new film. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that it’s groundbreaking or anything but as a new iteration of a popular franchise, it manages to appeal to both longtime fans and those like me who come into it generally new to the series. In the case of the former, it does this through solid but respectful homages to the franchise while the latter will find a surprisingly engrossing origin story with solid characters portrayed by an excellent group of leads. Now, with that said, admittedly if you weren’t already big on the series to begin with, you probably won’t get much out of this. Despite the change in tone, it’s still the same generally silly premise of teens fighting aliens in giant robots. But, if you are a fan of the show, it is a nice new addition to the franchise. It’s basically the original Mighty Morphin series but with the budget and scale that it just didn’t have back when it was on. Thus, I think longtime fans will enjoy this just fine; I can tell that just from my own theater experience. When the Power Rangers theme came on, there was applause. Thus, I think it’s safe to say that Power Rangers will be a definite crowd-pleaser for fans young and old.

Rating: 4/5

Power Rangers: Film Retrospective

This weekend sees the release of Power Rangers, the new film reboot of the popular TV franchise of the same name. For many kids of the 90’s, Power Rangers was one of the definitive facets of their childhoods. Developed by TV producer Haim Saban, who was initially known for providing soundtracks for shows like He-Man and Inspector Gadget, the franchise first got started in 1993 with Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. A superhero-esque series in which a group of teenagers becomes a team of warriors known as the ‘Power Rangers’ to fight the evil forces of sorceress Rita Repulsa with the help of giant animal ‘robots’ known as ‘Zords’, the show heavily utilized stock footage from Toei’s Super Sentai franchise, repurposing it around an American cast. Since 1993 (And yes, this franchise has been around for almost 2.5 decades now; feel old, yet?), the show has been on for 24 seasons, with a new themed iteration occurring each year. Examples of these later seasons include Power Rangers Zeo, Power Rangers: Dino Thunder, and Power Rangers: Mystic Force. The series originally aired on Fox Kids, where it became one of the programming block’s most popular shows. But, for most of the 2000’s, the franchise was owned by Disney, who aired it on their owned networks like ABC Family and Toon Disney. Saban would later go on to reclaim ownership rights in 2010, and the series now primarily airs on Nickelodeon. But now, let’s go back to the new Power Rangers film for a moment. This is the third Power Rangers film to date, as the previous two films were released in the late 90’s back in the franchise’s heyday. The first was based on the original series, Mighty Morphin, while the second film is based on the franchise’s third TV iteration, Power Rangers Turbo. And today, we’ll be looking at both these films.

But, before we get into the films, I should probably mention something. You see, I didn’t really grow up with Power Rangers as a kid. For one thing, the original Mighty Morphin series, which still stands as the most iconic iteration of the franchise, concluded in November 1995, before I was even a year old. The most that I ever saw of that version of the show was a single episode that I watched at, of all places, the University of Rhode Island during a Special Olympics trip that I was on with my family (who frequently volunteers for the Special Olympics) all the way back in 2002 or so (I’ll admit that I don’t know the exact year), many years before I ended up going there for college. I do remember seeing commercials for the series on TV (this was back during the Disney run when it aired on Toon Disney’s programming block, Jetix) but I never watched it. I guess you could say that it just wasn’t my thing. So, with that said, if I’m not too familiar with the franchise, why then am I looking at these two films? Well, that’s because I’m genuinely interested in the new Power Rangers film. Sure, I may not have grown up with the original show, but as a 90’s kid (and yes, I do consider myself a 90’s kid even though I was only around for half the decade), it is one of the definitive shows of my generation. Regardless of how the new film turns out, I’m genuinely curious as to how it will serve as a new adaptation of the series, specifically as a reboot of its most popular iteration. So, without further ado, it’s time to activate your Ranger powers and get into your giant Zord robots as today, we’ll be looking at the original two Power Rangers films. But first, I should probably get more acquainted with this franchise.

THOUGHTS ON THE SHOW

To prepare for this post, I watched a few episodes of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers before watching the films. I didn’t watch the entire series because, well, there’s no way that I would’ve been able to get through all 145 episodes (!) of the original series in just a week. So, instead, I just watched some of the first few episodes and then the ones that had the biggest arcs (e.g. ‘Green with Evil’, which introduced Tommy Oliver the Green Ranger (later the White Ranger), and ‘The Power Transfer’, which revealed the new Red, Yellow, and Black Rangers who would go on to appear in the first film; Rocky DeSantos, Aisha Campbell, and Adam Park, respectively). And I was surprised to find that, as someone who didn’t grow up with this show and watched it for the first time as an adult… I kind of enjoyed it. Now, for the record, I do concur with the common points that everyone brings up about this show, namely the fact that it is very, very cheesy; goofy one-liners, strange plot-points, wacky sound effects, you name it, this show probably has it. Obviously, this show is for kids but, with that said, adults may not find much for them here unless they were part of the generation that grew up with it. Not surprisingly, in the show’s early years, it was highly scrutinized by parents for being too violent, even though it’s obviously quite tame by today’s standards. It’s also quite repetitive. Almost every episode plays out the exact same way. There’s a minor issue of the week followed by the appearance of one of Rita’s monsters that the Rangers eventually defeat in their giant Zord robots before concluding with closure for that episode’s subplot. I’m kind of amazed that this show managed to last for over 140 episodes despite almost all of them having similar plot structures.   

Still, I have to admit that the kid in me found this show to be quite enjoyable. The use of Super Sentai footage results in some enjoyably cheesy fight scenes that are reminiscent of old Japanese monster films (e.g. Godzilla), and even though the instances in which the show switches between Japanese footage and American footage are obvious, it’s still an interesting hybrid of ideas. And even though the show is undeniably cheesy and often repetitive (e.g. the same stock footage of the Zords going into battle appears in multiple episodes), there’s kind of a charm to it all. As for the main characters, they often tend to be rather generic with simple character development, which is probably due in part to the repetitive nature of the show and its ‘morals’. However, they are still all-around likable and each of the main leads are fine in their respective roles. Plus, I think we can all agree that Tommy Oliver AKA the Green Ranger… is arguably the best character in the entire show, thanks in part to the epic 5-parter that he debuted in, ‘Green with Evil’. Yes, they did a 5-part story arc, something that you clearly don’t see too often on a TV show. And, ultimately, it’s a prime example of how this show sometimes managed to raise the stakes despite being a light-hearted show for kids. So, in conclusion, while I didn’t grow up with this show, I probably would’ve loved it if I did. Would it have led to me sticking with it throughout its numerous iterations? Eh, probably not but, still, it’s clear to see why the original series was such a big hit with its target demographic.

And now, onto the films…

MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS: THE MOVIE (1995)

In between Seasons 2 and 3 of the show, the Power Rangers appeared in their first feature film, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie. However, in this instance, the film does not tie into the series’ canon; it’s its own separate entity. The only real effect that it had on the show was that some episodes of the second season ended up getting filmed in Australia, where the film was being made. Still, this film is exactly what’d you expect from Power Rangers. It’s cheesy and has a minimal plot with little to no character development but it’s also light-hearted with some enjoyably over-the-top fight sequences. As such, the main villain Ivan Ooze (played by Paul Freeman AKA Belloq from Raiders of the Lost Ark) is more of a campy villain than a threatening one. Really, the only ‘evil’ thing that he ever did was screw over X-Men: Apocalypse (click here if you don’t know what I’m referring to). One of the film’s primary advantages, though, is that because it has a bigger budget compared to the show, it does feel more high-quality in terms of its production design. Granted, the same can’t be said for a lot of the visual effects. Unlike the show, which utilized practical effects (namely, the Godzilla technique of rubber-suit fight scenes), the film uses CG… and simply put, this CG has aged quite horribly. Still, at the very least, the bigger budget does allow the film to have a grander scale to it compared to the show. Thus, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie proves to be a harmless affair. Fans of the show will probably like this just fine, as it has just enough Ranger action in it to satisfy them. But for the uninitiated, like the show, you won’t get much out of this.

Rating: 3/5

TURBO: A POWER RANGERS MOVIE (1997)

Two years after the first film, we got the second Power Rangers film; Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie. This time, the film WAS directly tied to the series’ canon. Specifically, it serves as a bridge between Power Rangers Zeo, the second iteration of the franchise, and the third ‘series’, Power Rangers Turbo. However, despite this advantage over the first film, and a return to the practical ‘Zord’ effects… that’s all that this film has, really. It’s a slow-moving film with minimal action. In fact, for a film that’s part of the Power Rangers franchise, there isn’t even a lot of ‘Power Ranger’ action in this film. Aside from a brief few seconds in which Pink Ranger Katherine dons her Zeo outfit (and then almost immediately morphs out of it once she falls into water because apparently, those suits aren’t waterproof), the full team doesn’t morph into their new ‘Turbo’ Ranger suits until around more than half an hour in, and they don’t even fight in them until the final third. Thus, most of the fight scenes in this film (which are quite underwhelming, for the record) see them in their civilian attire. Not even the return of original series stars Amy Jo Johnson and Austin St. John (Kimberly and Jason, respectively) can save this film. Thus, Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie, unfortunately, ends up being a very mediocre affair. It kind of reminds me of the 2008 Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated film that was released in theaters in that it feels more like a made-for-TV film. It just doesn’t have the same ‘filmic’ quality of the first film. And despite what I said before about fans of the show enjoying the first film despite its faults, I can’t say the same for this because of its severe lack of ‘Power Ranger’ action. Maybe this goes to show why, based on what I’ve gathered from the review of the subsequent Turbo season by online comic book reviewer (and Power Rangers fan) Linkara, it seems like Power Rangers Turbo wasn’t very popular amongst fans of the franchise. And this film probably had something to do with it.

Rating: 1/5

And those are my thoughts on the Power Rangers films, as well as my first real reaction to the original Mighty Morphin Power Rangers series. Like I said, I didn’t grow up with this show but looking at it now, I bet I would’ve if I was around when it was on. Obviously, I know that some of you did grow up with it so if you did, be sure to sound off in the comments below with your favorite memories of Power Rangers. You can also expect a review of the new Power Rangers film sometime this weekend. Until then, it’s morphin’ time! 

Beauty and the Beast (2017) review

Disney’s been on a roll as of late with their live-action reimaginings of their classic animated films. Granted, this current trend of theirs isn't going over well with ‘everybody’, as I pointed out last time, but, for the most part, films like Cinderella and The Jungle Book have been major successes on both a critical and commercial level instead of just on a commercial one as was initially the case with these films. And for their latest endeavor on this front, Disney revives one of its most beloved stories for a new generation; Beauty and the Beast. The studio’s original animated take on the classic fairytale of the same name from 1756 was the second smash hit of the ‘Disney Renaissance’ era when it was released in 1991. In fact, it was so universally adored that it ended up being the first animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, a feat that has only been accomplished 2 other times since then by, fittingly enough, a pair of Pixar films; 2009’s Up and 2010’s Toy Story 3, which, of course, were released under the Disney banner. So, yeah, one could say that there was a lot of pressure on this new take on the ‘Tale as Old as Time’, directed by Bill Condon, who's no stranger to musicals having written the screenplay for 2002’s Best Picture winner, Chicago (not to mention directing 2006’s Dreamgirls, which won 2 Oscars), and features an all-star ensemble cast. After all, we’re talking about one of the most famous Disney stories of all time, meaning that this new film has a hell of a lot to live up to. Thankfully, Condon does do justice to this beloved masterpiece of a story with a highly enjoyable new take on Beauty and the Beast that respects its predecessor without being a direct carbon copy of it.

In a quaint little town in France, a young woman named Belle (Emma Watson) is a complete mystery to the rest of the people living there. Never once conforming to the expectations that life tries to set upon her, Belle spends most of her days reading, inventing things, and ignoring the advances of the town’s popular but egotistical local hunter, Gaston (Luke Evans), while also hoping to someday leave the confines of her ‘poor, provincial’ town. That day ends up coming sooner than anticipated when she goes to rescue her father Maurice (Kevin Kline), who had been taken prisoner by a monstrous Beast (Dan Stevens) that resides within a forgotten castle not far from town. To save her father, Belle ends up taking his place as the Beast’s prisoner. But, soon after, she begins to learn the big secret behind the castle and, more importantly, its mysterious owner. As it turns out, years ago, the Beast was a selfish and vain human prince who was cursed by an Enchantress after he had rejected her pleas for shelter. Turning him into a Beast, as well as turning his servants into enchanted household objects, she puts the Prince under the pressure of having to find true love in time before the last petal of the red rose that she initially offered him falls. And, thus, as Belle begins to become more and more accepted by the Beast and his servants, she does begin to fall in love with him, which soon causes problems once Gaston learns of the situation.

Now, admittedly, as far as Disney’s remakes go, this is more like Cinderella than The Jungle Book. By that, I mean that you shouldn't go into this expecting a lot of differences between this new version and the original. It's the same exact story with the same primary plot points. So, with that said, I know what some of you will inevitably say; “Why the hell remake a masterpiece then?” But I'm going to ignore that debate for now because, to me, it all comes down to execution, and I'm pleased to say that this film is very well-made in every possible way. Sure, it's still the same story as the original but I'd say that there are just enough new elements in here, as minor as some may be, that help differentiate it from the original (e.g. a new plotline that reveals why Maurice and Belle stayed in their provincial town for all these years). Visually, this film is a top contender for next year’s Oscar for Best Visual Effects, Production Design, and basically every other major technical award at that ceremony. Yes, a lot of the visuals in this are CG but they are done excellently. And as for the songs, well, what more needs to be said about them? They're the classic songs written by Alan Menken, Howard Ashman, and Tim Rice and are all handled brilliantly in live-action. You'll be tapping your foot along to the beat of ‘Gaston’, marvel at the grandeur of ‘Be Our Guest’, and awe at the beauty (no pun intended) of the title song, ‘Beauty and the Beast’. There's also some great new songs as well, including the sweet recurring melody ‘How Does a Moment Last Forever’, which is sung three times in the film (this includes the end-credits version sung by Celine Dion who, of course, sung the title song during the end credits of the animated film) and the Beast’s new big solo, ‘Evermore’.

One of the best things about the film, though, is its ensemble cast. Because, damn, does this film have one of the most impressive ensembles in recent history. Of course, it's all led by Emma Watson, who does a phenomenal job in the role of Belle. Simply put, she does justice to one of Disney’s most beloved heroines while also doing just enough to provide some nice little updates to the character here and there without ever going against everything that made her great in the first place. And I know that she’s gotten some flak for her vocal performance during the musical numbers but I thought she was fine in that department. Dan Stevens is also fantastic as the Beast, perfectly conveying everything that goes into the character's great redemption arc. As for the villains of the film, both Luke Evans and Josh Gad are clearly having a lot of fun in the roles of Gaston and LeFou, respectively. They ham it up in the best way possible, as Evans perfectly encapsulates our favorite manly but shallow villain while Gad brings new depth to the role of Gaston’s loyal lackey. Kevin Kline is great as well in the role of Maurice, as he portrays the character in a much more toned down manner compared to the original that fits very well with the new plotline that shows why he’s been so protective of Belle all this time. And of course, we can't forget about the Beast’s servants and man did they get a great cast for these iconic supporting roles; Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette (Fifi in the original film), Audra McDonald as Madame de Garderobe the Wardrobe, and Stanley Tucci as new character Maestro Cadenza the Harpsichord.

And thus, Disney is now 4 for 4 with their recent live-action remakes. I mean, admittedly I don't think I can go as far as to say that it's the ‘best’ of these remakes but I can tell you one thing; it's a hell of a lot better than its current 71% score on Rotten Tomatoes suggests. Thankfully, that's still considered a ‘fresh’ rating but I have the feeling that some of the more negative reviews that the film has been getting have been a lot more stringent on comparisons between the two versions of this story. Like I said before, I can see why this is happening. Because this one is arguably the closest to its animated counterpart out of all the Disney remakes released to date, the word ‘unnecessary’ has undeniably been thrown around a lot. Maybe it is… but I don't care. I love the original (it is, after all, my 3^rd favorite Disney animated film of all-time) but I also love this new take on it, as its heart is very much in the right place. Plus, it is a genuinely well-made film in terms of its production design and visuals, not to mention having a fantastic ensemble cast to portray this story’s collection of iconic roles. Simply put, it's just an incredibly satisfying ‘feel good’ film and in this current time, this is exactly the kind of film that we need right now. Just ignore all the negativity in the world for a few hours (especially the negativity directed towards a certain element of this film; more on that in a bit) and enjoy a charming new take on a classic that we all know and love. On that note, to those who aren't big on these Disney remakes, don't worry, for the original animated film is still as perfect as it ever was. This new version is ultimately just like the remakes of Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Pete’s Dragon; it's a nice complement to the original source.

Rating: 5/5!

(P.S. Well, I should probably address the big controversy surrounding this film because… oh boy. So, as many of you are aware, the film has been getting some flak recently from some audiences after an announcement that stated that it would have Disney’s first ‘exclusively gay’ moment involving the character of LeFou. Because of this, there's been quite a bit of heavy blowback from various parties; some countries banned the film unless cuts were made, a theater in Alabama refused to show it, and in Russia, it was given an adult rating. Yes, in Russia, this film is considered nearly as mature as, say, Logan. To all this, I say… this is one of the stupidest and most overblown controversies in recent memory. This moment that everyone keeps talking about is just one SMALL moment at the end of the film. Heck, if it hadn't been pointed out beforehand, I bet most of us wouldn't have even noticed it because the film’s quite subtle about it. Bottom line, Disney isn't trying to force an LGBT agenda down our throats; they're just trying to represent a wider audience. What the hell is wrong with that? Also, this backlash totally goes against the great positive messages of this film, namely, you know, accepting people for who they really are on the inside. So, yeah… this backlash is frigging stupid.)

In Defense of Disney's Live-Action Remakes

(Disclaimer: As some of you will recognize, this is not the first time that this specific post has been published. A few weeks ago, I submitted a different form of this post to the animation website Rotoscopers. I knew that it would spark some controversy there due to those who aren’t big on Disney’s remake run, but I wanted to point out some positives about the company’s current live-action film strategy and try to reason that it’s not the worst thing in the world. I would like to thank the team at Rotoscopers for publishing my post and will be dedicating this new version of it to them. I will also be providing a link to the Rotoscopers post for you folks to check out if you haven’t already. The major difference between the two versions of this post is simple; with Rotoscopers, I had to keep it to a specific word limit. Here, expect a much longer post that’s much more in line with the usual content that I post here.)

This weekend sees the release of one of the year’s most highly anticipated films; Disney’s Beauty and the Beast. The film is a live-action adaptation of the studio’s beloved animated masterpiece of the same name from 1991 and is the latest in a growing line of new adaptations of classic Disney stories. For you see, Disney’s current live-action film slate is primarily based around one thing; live-action remakes/re-imaginings of their animated classics. This trend first got started in 2010 with Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, a pseudo-follow-up to the studio’s animated take on the Lewis Carroll story of the same name from 1951. While the film received mixed reviews from both critics and audiences, it was a smash hit at the box office, as it managed to gross over $1 billion worldwide. Four years later, that commercial success continued with Maleficent, a ‘re-imagining’ of Disney’s 1959 effort, Sleeping Beauty. It was the same situation; the film attracted a polarizing reception but was a major box-office hit. One year later, Disney then released a remake of Cinderella but unlike the previous two films, this one not only did well at the box office but it was also the first to be generally well-received by critics. Because of this, Disney then proceeded to announce a wide slew of remakes/re-imaginings over the next few months for films like Mulan, Winnie the Pooh, Dumbo, and so on and so forth. It’s honestly gotten to the point where almost every single Disney animated classic has a remake that has either come out, is slated to come out, or is currently in the works.

But, as some of you might have guessed, this slew of ‘remake announcements’ hasn’t gone over entirely well with everybody. Namely, there are quite a few people on the internet who are not a fan of Disney’s current live-action film strategy for various reasons, including the obvious argument of ‘why remake a classic’ and the fact that these remakes are now the primary projects on the studio’s schedule instead of original films. In fact, some of my good friends in the blogger community are in this exact crowd. As for me, though, I’m eagerly looking forward to a lot of these new remakes because of the great potential that they have. Now, for the record, I’m well-aware of an old quote from Walt Disney himself in which he remarked that ‘you can’t top pigs with pigs’, which basically asserted his own theory on the idea of sequels after he produced several sequels to the studio’s 1933 classic short, Three Little Pigs, that weren’t as successful as the original. But that was a different time; nowadays, nothing is ‘truly original’ anymore, meaning that stuff like this is bound to happen. Now, let me be clear, I love seeing an original film as much as the next person. Heck, my #8 favorite film from last year was Swiss Army Man. However, I’m not one of those people who outright condemns sequels, reboots, and remakes just because they exist. Thus, today on Rhode Island Movie Corner, I’ll be listing three reasons as to why I’m enthusiastic towards the upcoming line of Disney’s ‘live-action remakes’. Again, let me be clear; I understand where those who are against the remakes are coming from but, please, hear me out on this for a moment.

REASON #1: MANY OF THE RECENT REMAKES HAVE BEEN GOOD

Now, of course, this is an argument that can be quite subjective, just like film itself, hence why I decided to start this post with this argument right out the gate. There is no such thing as a ‘universally beloved’ film; every film has its critic and the recent Disney remakes are no exception to this. However, some of the most recent remakes in this lineup have genuinely been a success with BOTH critics and audiences. And again, as I noted earlier, this wasn’t initially the case. Both Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent were polarizing, to say the least, and believe me when I say that I have come across opinions on both sides of the spectrum. I have seen plenty of people who have expressed absolute contempt for these remakes. But, at the same time, I’ve also come across quite a few people that absolutely love these films. Therefore, it makes a lot more sense to me now why Alice in Wonderland managed to gross over a billion back in 2010; there were some people out there who did really like it. Same situation with Maleficent, which overcame its mixed reception to gross over $750 million worldwide and end up as the 4^th highest-grossing film of 2014. So, in short, while the films may not have done well with critics, they were doing well with audiences and, if you ask me, that usually matters more; knowing that audiences were enjoying it. Clearly, most audiences aren’t bothered by these remakes coming out and, if you ask me, why rain on their parade?   

But then when Cinderella came out, things were a little different as the critical reception was far more positive compared to Alice and Maleficent. Maintaining a solid 83% on Rotten Tomatoes and with over $500 million worldwide, it was very much the first in this line of Disney remakes that was a true bona fide success from a critical standpoint and not just a commercial one. Again, it did have its critics (believe me, I’ve gotten some flak from some people online for liking this film) but it ultimately proved that, if anything, these remakes could be fantastic. And then, in 2016, audiences were treated to not one but two highly successful adaptations of classic Disney films (note: before any of you bring up the critically-bashed sequel to Alice in Wonderland, Alice Through the Looking Glass, that doesn’t really count in this instance because it’s primarily a sequel). Director Jon Favreau’s adaptation of The Jungle Book was one of the best-reviewed films of 2016 and it grossed nearly $1 billion worldwide. And then, near the tail-end of the summer, there was Pete’s Dragon. It didn’t reach the same commercial heights of the other remakes, which is understandable considering that it’s based on a Disney film that isn’t as well-known compared to something like The Jungle Book, but it too was well-received by most critics and it did manage to break even with around $140 million worldwide on a modest $65 million budget. Now, let me be clear, I’m not saying that all the upcoming Disney remakes are going to be successful with both critics and audiences. There probably will be some critical duds here and there. However, no matter how well or how bad these upcoming remakes fare with critics, the previous three Disney remakes will stand as genuine success stories and proof that not only can they be done, but done well.

REASON #2: THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR NEW TAKES ON THESE STORIES

To me, the best thing that a ‘remake’ can do is offer a new take on a classic story. And that’s one of the key reasons as to why I am genuinely looking forward to most of these Disney remakes. While some will no doubt share many similarities with their animated predecessors, it’s not like they’re going to be ‘note-for-note’ copies or anything. The only real instance in which I’ve seen this happen is director Gus Van Sant’s 1998 remake of Psycho and the critical bashing that film got is a good reason, I’d say, as to why you don’t see a lot of ‘note-for-note’ remakes. Alice in Wonderland, for example, was a ‘continuation’ of the original story while Maleficent was the story of Sleeping Beauty told from the perspective of the titular villain, Maleficent. Say what you will about the films themselves but the decision to tell these stories from a different angle was, at the very least, ‘something different’. The other big Disney remake of this nature, which ultimately ended up being the most different from its predecessor, was Pete’s Dragon. Instead of being a musical like the original 1977 film was, the new adaptation was more of a drama. And while this may have ticked off some fans of the original, to the point where some even referred to the new film as ‘Pete’s Dragon in name only’, again, it was ‘something different’. Jon Favreau took a similar approach with The Jungle Book. While there were some elements of the original animated film that were featured in the new version (e.g. its most popular songs), Favreau also utilized elements from Rudyard Kipling’s original story to create something along the lines of a hybrid between the film’s two primary source materials.

Now, admittedly, the 2015 remake of Cinderella was basically just the same general story as its predecessor; a young girl is subjected to relentless cruelty from her wicked stepmother and stepsisters but her life then changes once she meets a charming prince. So, of course, some of you may ask “Well, why the heck did they remake it, then?” But, you see, they did throw in a few new things here and there to differentiate itself from the original, like having scenes with young Ella and her parents (whereas in the original, these scenes were just part of the opening narration, sans her mother) and additional scenes between her and the Prince prior to the Ball instead of just having them first meet at said Ball. Stuff like this, especially the latter, did help the film expand upon the story of the original which, as great as it is, is admittedly a product of its time. And, overall, it’s clear that a similar method is going on with the new Beauty and the Beast. While still the same story of a young woman who slowly falls in love with the monstrous-looking prince of an enchanted castle, there are a few changes that have been made here and there to make it its own thing; most notably, Belle is now an inventor just like her father. Now, for the record, I’m not saying that these changes are going to automatically improve upon the original, nor am I expecting the new film to be ‘better’ than the original. Instead, I view it in the same way that I do the other Disney remakes; as a nice complement to the original that can stand on its own merit alongside the original. On that note…

REASON #3: NOTHING. IS. GETTING. REPLACED!

This is the one point that I feel should be stressed ad nauseam… because, clearly, this is the one thing that those who are against the Disney remakes fear the most when it comes to them. They fear that these remakes are the studio’s way of ‘erasing’ the original animated films from existence, implying that animation is inferior to live-action/CG. Trust me when I say that this is not the case whatsoever. This isn’t like the original Star Wars trilogy, where George Lucas has continually made changes to the films without ever giving us any chance of viewing them in their original format. No matter what happens with these remakes, the originals will still be there at the end of the day. Case in point, the original Beauty and the Beast was just given a fancy new 25^th-anniversary Blu-Ray right in time for the release of the new film. They also released the original Jungle Book on Blu-Ray a few years ago; sure, it may have been two whole years before Jon Favreau’s live-action version and it’s since gone back into the Disney Vault but, again, it shows that Disney still cares about the original versions. Yes, there have been a few behind-the-scenes videos in which those working on the new BATB (namely, director Bill Condon) say stuff along the lines of ‘technology allows us to do things we couldn’t do in 1991’ but that’s just the marketing material talking. Not once have they ever said ‘we’re trying to replace the original film’. In fact, most of those who’ve worked on these Disney remakes have made it clear in interviews that they adore the original films and were doing their best to try and live up to their reputation.   

And at the end of the day, if any of these upcoming remakes don’t turn out so good, so what? It’s not like they’re ‘metaphorical murder’ or anything (note: that phrase ‘metaphorical murder’ was an actual comment made by a critic of the Disney remakes). The reputation of their original sources won’t be tarnished by them; heck, if anything, they’d just end up making the originals even better by comparison. This is a mentality that’s been around for pretty much every other remake, reboot, and so on and so forth that’s come out in the past few years, not just the ones from Disney. Whenever one’s announced, the internet reacts to it like it caused the plague or something. But, really, that’s all that it is; a mentality, not a reality. Sure, some remakes are more questionable than others but it’s not like there’s some law out there that states that a certain film can’t be remade. The worst possible outcome would be that it’s just a lame remake, nothing else. Heck, this backlash towards the Disney remakes is honestly not too far off from what happened with the new Ghostbusters film. As we all know by now, when that film was first announced, it was absolutely savaged by the internet, particularly from angry fanboys who just couldn’t handle the fact that their favorite franchise was being brought back (and don’t get me started about when they found out that women were starring in it). But, it came out, and it did ok with critics. More important, though, is the fact that all copies of the original Ghostbusters films did not spontaneously combust into flames as was feared. And guess what? Neither did any of the Disney animated films when their live-action remakes were released.

In fact, some of the most beloved films of all time just so happen to be remakes. John Carpenter’s The Thing? Remake. The Departed? It’s a remake of a Hong Kong film from 2002 named Infernal Affairs. And the classic Wizard of Oz that we all know and love from 1939? That was the 11^th film adaptation of L. Frank Baum’s books (and it sure as hell wasn’t the last either)! Bottom line, just because Disney’s releasing a bunch of remakes doesn’t mean that they consider animation to be inferior. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that films like Frozen, Zootopia, and Moana are more than enough proof that animation is still Disney’s primary source of film output. Now, I’ll admit that I do think that Disney probably should’ve been a bit more conservative when it came to announcing all these remakes. It probably would’ve been better if they had announced like one or two a year instead of, you know, a new one every other week. Still, I think it’s exciting that we’re getting new takes on the classic stories of our childhoods that will help introduce them to a new generation. Just remember that the original films still exist, okay guys? Because if there’s any real sign of these films being overshadowed by their new live-action counterparts, it’s more the internet’s fault and not Disney’s (Remember when all those videos bashing The Jungle Book came out before the remake's release? Well the same thing just happened again with Beauty and the Beast.). And to those who aren’t big on these upcoming remakes, that’s fine; no one’s forcing you to watch them. Just let those who are excited for them have their fun, okay?

Click here for the original version of this post that was submitted to Rotoscopers.com

Kong: Skull Island (2017) review

For nearly nine decades, King Kong has stood (figuratively and, in some cases, literally!) as one of the most iconic creatures in film history. The original King Kong from 1933 still stands as one of the most famous films of all time, particularly thanks to its groundbreaking special effects done by Willis O’Brien. Since then, this classic story of ‘Beauty killed the Beast’ has seen numerous updates over the years. There was the 1976 remake starring Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin, and Jessica Lange that was fairly hyped back in the day but ultimately received a mixed response from both critics and audiences upon release. And then there was the 2005 remake directed by Peter Jackson, which was far more successful with critics and audiences despite its butt-numbingly long 3-hour runtime. And this year, the Eighth Wonder of the World is back in a new film, Kong: Skull Island. The film serves as the second installment in Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures’ newly-developing ‘cinematic universe’ of monster films, dubbed the MonsterVerse, that first started with the 2014 reboot of Godzilla. These two classic monsters will soon share the screen in Godzilla vs. Kong, a ‘re-imagining’ of the duo’s previous crossover from 1962 that is set to come out in 2020. But first, it’s time to revive cinema’s definitive ape. Unlike Godzilla, which was set in the present day, Kong: Skull Island is set in the 70’s and is directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, who previously directed the 2013 indie film The Kings of Summer. Here, he takes us on a wild ride that may not have much to it in terms of story and character development but delivers on good old fashioned monster action.

The year is 1973. As America begins to back out of the Vietnam War, Bill Randa (John Goodman), senior official for a government program known as Monarch, and Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins), a geologist working for Monarch, acquire permission from the U.S. government for a mapping expedition to an uncharted island in the South Pacific known as ‘Skull Island’. To help them during the operation, they enlist the aid of an elite helicopter squadron known as the Sky Devils, led by Lt. Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), for escort and former British Special Air Service captain/tracker James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) to guide them once on the island. Along the way, they’re also joined by anti-war photojournalist Mason Weaver (Brie Larson), who’s along for the ride for her own reasons. But, once they arrive on Skull Island, they immediately come across its most notable resident, King Kong (portrayed via motion capture by Terry Notary), who ends up attacking them and subsequently strands them on the island. Separated into two groups, the survivors are now forced to try and get to the other side of the island in time to meet up with a resupply team. But, along the way, they find themselves having to deal with the other creatures on the island aside from Kong, specifically a race of creatures known as Skullcrawlers who were unleashed because of their efforts in mapping out the island.

While 2014’s Godzilla was a solid critical and commercial success, at least when compared to the infamous 1998 remake directed by Roland Emmerich, not everybody was a fan of it. One of the main reasons why was due to the limited screen-time of the title character; about eleven minutes to be precise. Here, though, director Jordan Vogt-Roberts wastes no time when it comes to getting into the monster action and he does deliver on that front. The action in this film is epic and a lot of it is thanks to the excellent visual design. As many have pointed out, it’s arguably the film’s greatest strength. From the bright and flashy color palette to the various homages to the 70’s, particularly Apocalypse Now, this film is absolutely gorgeous to look at. Like the 2005 film, Kong is portrayed via motion-capture and, fittingly enough, following in the footsteps of Andy Serkis’ take on the character in the 2005 film, here he’s played by Serkis’ Planet of the Apes co-star Terry Notary (AKA ‘Rocket’). And, boy, is Kong a ‘beast’ in this film. Standing at 100 feet tall, he absolutely towers over the human characters, resulting in some epic ‘scale shots’ that I’m sure look amazing on an IMAX screen (admittedly, I only saw this on a regular screen so I wouldn’t know). The other great thing about the film is that it isn’t just another redo of the original Kong story. In other words, we don’t go back to New York at the end of it to see Kong climb the Empire State Building; heck, this Kong doesn’t even need to climb it given his height. Instead, almost the entire film takes place on Skull Island and, as such, wastes no opportunities in terms of showcasing its unique wildlife.

But while the visuals, visual style, and action sequences are great, admittedly the story is the film’s biggest weakness. Despite what I just said about it not being a rehash of previous Kong films, it’s basically just a simple ‘get off the island’ story, nothing more, nothing less. And the same thing can be said for the characters as well, which may have something to do with the fact that this film has one of the largest ensemble casts I’ve ever seen. Seriously, there are quite a lot of characters in this film and, as you might have guessed, some of them don’t get much to do in this. Still, at the very least, the film does have a good cast to play these parts, as limited as some of them may be. All the leads do good jobs; Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L. Jackson, etc. However, the biggest standouts of the film come from the supporting cast. This includes Shea Whigham as Earl Cole, an eccentric member of the Sky Devils, and, most of all, John C. Reilly as Hank Marlow, a former pilot who had been stranded on Skull Island for nearly three decades after crash-landing there during World War II. Now, I’ll admit that in regards to Reilly, when he first appeared in the film’s second trailer, I wasn’t sure at first how he’d factor into the film. Clearly meant to be the main source of comic relief, initially, I was unsure if it would fit with the overall tone of the film, which seemed to be generally serious based on the first few trailers. However, having now seen the film, it’s clear that Reilly’s performance is in line with the film’s overall light-hearted nature; as such, he’s one of the best parts of the film and, technically speaking, he’s arguably got the most to work with in terms of character development out of anyone in the entire cast.

It seems to me that Kong: Skull Island is proving to be just as polarizing as 2014’s Godzilla. But while Godzilla divided audiences primarily due to the limited screen-time of the titular monster, it looks like the polarizing nature of Skull Island is due to just what kind of beast of a film it is. It has much more to it in terms of monster action than Godzilla but, like that film, it also doesn’t have much to it in terms of plot and character development. Still, director Jordan Vogt-Roberts does succeed in what he clearly must have set out to do; make a good old-fashioned monster film. And thanks to some excellent monster action, as well as fantastic visuals based on a gorgeous 70’s-inspired visual style, Kong: Skull Island is a highly entertaining new take on the lore of King Kong. Admittedly, I wouldn’t say that it’s my favorite of the Kong films (that honor is between the 1933 original and Peter Jackson’s 2005 remake) but it’s a worthy addition to the Kong franchise nevertheless. Not only that, but I am looking forward to the future installments of Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures’ MonsterVerse, especially the upcoming crossover between Kong and Godzilla which, without giving anything major away, is teased in this film.

Rating: 4/5

(Also, be sure to check out my buddy Alex Corey’s review of the film over on his blog, Alex Corey Reviews!!)

http://alexcoreyfilm.blogspot.com/2017/03/kong-skull-island-movie-review.html

King Kong Retrospective (1933, 1976, and 2005)

In the world of cinema, one ape stands above the rest as one of the most iconic creatures in film history; King Kong. In 1933, filmmakers Merian C. Cooper (who also became known as one of the primary figures in the development of the Cinerama projection technique) and Ernest B. Schoedsack co-directed a monster film about a giant ape who lives on a mysterious island known as ‘Skull Island’. There, he is discovered by a filmmaking crew that journeys there and is subsequently brought to New York, where he rampages around for a bit before climbing the Empire State Building, where he is finally shot down by fighter planes. This beloved tale of ‘beauty killed the beast’, in which the ape also falls in love with a young woman who is ‘sacrificed’ to him, still stands as one of the most famous films of all time. But over the years, the ‘Eighth Wonder of the World’ has gone through numerous onscreen interpretations. The latest of these, Kong: Skull Island, hits theaters this weekend and in anticipation of that, today I’ll be reviewing the King Kong films. Now, to be specific, I’m not covering every single film that is part of the official franchise. I’m only reviewing the 1933 original, the 1976 ‘re-imagining’, and the 2005 remake. Plus, I’ll also be looking at a 1962 crossover between Kong and Godzilla, which is being included solely because the new Kong film is part of the same franchise as the 2014 Godzilla reboot and a new version of this crossover is set to come out in 2020. Thus, I will not be reviewing Son of Kong, the sequel to the 1933 Kong that was released just nine months after the original (in the same year, no less), King Kong Escapes, a Toho-produced film that was, believe it or not, co-produced by Rankin/Bass (yes, THAT Rankin/Bass) as a live-action remake of a TV show they produced titled The King Kong Show, and King Kong Lives, a sequel to the 1976 Kong which, from what I hear… is just godawful.

KING KONG (1933)

We start things off, of course, with the original classic produced by RKO from 1933. By next year, this film will be 85 years old… and from the perspective of someone who watched it for the first time ever just a few days ago, it still holds up quite well. Sure, there are obviously some parts of the film that are now dated (e.g. some potentially racist stereotypes) but it’s still a highly enjoyable adventure story with a solid lead cast that includes Fay Wray as the charming leading lady Ann Darrow, Bruce Cabot as the rugged first mate Jack Driscoll who later falls in love with her, and Robert Armstrong as the eccentric filmmaker Carl Denham who leads the expedition to Skull Island. But, of course, the main draw of the film is its ground-breaking special effects that still look great today. Seriously, a lot of effort went into developing the visuals for this film. Most of the creatures in the film, especially Kong, were created via stop-motion animation by special effects pioneer Willis O’Brien. But then there were some other interesting things that they did to integrate live-action footage into the scene, like having a full-sized model of Kong’s head whenever he puts someone in his mouth, having the actors perform in front of a rear projection system, and having shots of actors composited in with shots of the stop-motion animation. And, again, as dated as some of these effects may have become, it’s still quite an impressive feat for a film that was made nearly nine decades ago. Obviously, Kong has seen a lot of other interpretations over the years but, no matter what, the original King Kong is still one of the most iconic films of all-time.

Rating: 5/5!

KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1962)

(Disclaimer: As is common with a lot of the Godzilla films, there were different versions of this film that were made for the regions that it was released in. The following review is for the original 97-minute Japanese version and not the 91-minute version released in the U.S.)

There’s quite a lot of history surrounding this film. Arguably the first of its kind in terms of monster crossover films, King Kong vs. Godzilla was also the first film in which both monsters appeared in color. But early on in its development, it was almost going to be about King Kong going up against an enlarged version of Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, the original idea conceived by Willis O’Brien in 1960. Once the film was picked up by Toho, the studio behind the Godzilla films, it was reworked into a crossover between Kong and Godzilla, the latter of whom made a triumphant return to the big-screen after the climactic ending in 1955’s Godzilla Raids Again in which he’s buried in ice. Likewise, this was Kong’s first feature film since the original King Kong back in 1933. What follows is exactly what you’d expect from a Godzilla film; you’re not really in it for the plot, which sees a pharmaceutical company attempt to orchestrate a publicity stunt involving Kong, which eventually leads into a battle with Godzilla. Instead, it’s all about the fight between these two iconic monsters in the cheesy but entertaining definitive style of the Godzilla films; in other words, having two guys in rubber suits duking it out. Admittedly, though, this final battle is only at the very end of the film. Aside from that, there’s a brief confrontation between the two and there’s also a scene in which Kong fights a giant octopus that attacks the village on the island which he initially resides on. As such, some parts of the film do drag a bit. However, it’s ultimately worth it for the Kong-Godzilla fights. With that in mind, it’s easy to see why this has been one of the most popular films in the Godzilla series and I do look forward to the upcoming ‘remake’ in 2020 which, of course, is the main reason why this film was included in this retrospective.

Rating: 3/5

KING KONG (1976)

The first big ‘remake’ of King Kong came about in 1976, produced for Paramount by legendary producer Dino De Laurentiis and directed by John Guillermin. From what I’ve read, there was a lot of anticipation surrounding the film upon release. However, it only ended up being a commercial success, as it got a mixed to negative response from critics. So, with that in mind, is this take on the Eighth Wonder of the World as bad as some of the critics said it was? Well, not really; in some aspects, it’s even a little underrated. At the very least, the film is well-made on a technical level; cinematography, location/set design, etc. The key selling point of the film, like the original, is its visuals. In this iteration, Kong was portrayed by legendary makeup artist Rick Baker in an ape suit, and while Baker has stated that he wasn’t pleased with the final design, it does look great on-screen. There’s even one scene in which they have a full-scale, 40-foot-tall Kong animatronic, which was designed by special effects artist Carlo Rambaldi, who also worked on films like E.T. and Alien. Sadly, it didn’t end up working right and, thus, was only used for one scene; the scene in which Kong breaks free from his chains in New York. The only visuals that haven’t aged well, though, are the green-screen effects, specifically whenever Kong is holding someone in his hand. I watched this film on VUDU at the highest quality, HDX, and they just didn’t look good. The best way I can describe it is that it’s obvious whenever a green-screen is being used. Thankfully, most of the other visuals in the film are better by comparison, hence why the film ended up winning the Oscar for Best Visual Effects that year.

But while most of the film’s visuals are great, resulting in some great monster action sequences, the story isn’t as successful. Now, for the record, I don’t mind the changes that were made to differentiate the film from the original. Instead of the premise being about a film crew that goes to shoot at Skull Island, this film instead focuses on an oil tycoon named Fred Wilson who journeys to the island in search of oil. Once Kong is found, he’s taken back to New York and is used as a marketing gimmick for his company. And instead of climbing the Empire State Building, he climbs the towers of the World Trade Center in yet another equally memorable Kong finale. Again, I’m fine with these changes, but the film has an overall campy tone that I don’t think works very well. The acting’s hit-or-miss, too. Jeff Bridges is fine in the Jack Driscoll role (re-imagined here as Jack Prescott, a paleontologist) and Charles Grodin is enjoyably over-the-top in the role of Fred Wilson. Jessica Lange, on the other hand, is the big weak link of the film as she’s just too ditzy in the role of the Ann Darrow equivalent, Dwan. Thankfully, this didn’t immediately kill her career because, as we all know, she has done better in other projects. So, in conclusion, what do I think about this arguably infamous remake? Well, I don’t hate it, but I don’t necessarily love it either. It is well-made for its time and has some nice creature effects thanks to the legendary duo of Rick Baker and Carlo Rambaldi. Not only that, but the film did leave its mark on pop culture as evident from two former attractions at Universal Studios parks; the iconic King Kong Encounter from Universal Studios Hollywood’s Studio Tour and Kongfrontation at Universal Studios Orlando. Still, it just didn’t have the same awe factor of the original. Thus, as far as Kong remakes go, I prefer the following remake over this one.

Rating: 3/5

KING KONG (2005)

And, finally, we have the latest ‘remake’ of the original film; from 2005, Universal’s King Kong, directed by Peter Jackson in what was his first major project after the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Like the ’76 film, there was a lot of hype surrounding it, but unlike that film, this one fared much better with critics and audiences. Sure enough, it’s an excellent new take on the classic story of ‘Beauty Killed the Beast’. The story is more in line with the original and Jackson’s affection for the 1933 film is apparent throughout (e.g. using classic lines, featuring snippets of the original film’s score, etc.). At the same time, though, he does just enough to make his take on the story his own, like giving Ann Darrow more drive in this version than previous incarnations of the character. By comparison, Fay Wray’s take on the character in the ’33 film, while still undeniably great and iconic, was mostly just a damsel-in-distress that didn’t have much of an emotional connection with Kong. This Ann, on the other hand, stands her own ground against Kong and has a much more personal bond with him up until the very end. On that note, Naomi Watts does a fantastic job in the role of Ann and while Jack Black and Adrien Brody have gotten less positive responses as Carl Denham and Jack Driscoll, respectively (in Brody’s case, for being too bland, and in Black’s case, for being too over-the-top), I thought that they were both fine. The other big star of the cast? Andy Serkis, the king of motion-capture. Via the same process that turned him into Gollum in the Lord of the Rings films, he took on the role of Kong in this film, and the motion-capture effects for Kong are fantastic. Heck, a lot of the film’s effects are excellent. Sure, most of them are primarily CG-based this time around but they do their job in creating the world of Skull Island and the creatures that inhabit it.

There’s only one thing that really holds this film back, and it’s the one thing that everyone has said about the film; it’s too damn long. Clocking in at a staggering 187 minutes (and, for the record, that’s only the Theatrical Cut; the ‘Extended Edition’, released on DVD, buffs up the already hefty runtime by 20 minutes), the film takes its sweet time to tell the story and while I wasn’t necessarily ‘bored’ at any part in the film, at the same time I will admit that sometimes it can be a chore to get through. By comparison, the 1933 film was far better paced at a brisk 100 minutes (or 104 minutes if you add in the overture). Heck, even the 1976 film, which also had a slower pace to it, wasn’t as long; it was just a little over two hours. Simply put, there are quite a few parts in this film that would’ve benefitted greatly from some cuts, especially during the long, long, LONG trip to Skull Island. But, despite the arguably problematic runtime, it’s undeniably clear that Jackson was the best choice to do a new version of King Kong and he succeeds in doing so with this film. Now, I’ll admit that I watched this version first before the original. Like the 2009 Star Trek film, I had purchased it on iTunes and originally watched it on my iPod (and before any of you ask, yes, I managed to get through the whole three-hour film while watching it on an iPod). And while I now regard the original as the best version of the story (because, obviously…), I still have highly positive feelings towards the 2005 film, one of the best remakes of all-time.  

Rating: 4.5/5

Logan (2017) review

There have been many iconic superhero film casting choices over the years; Christopher Reeve as Superman, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, the list goes on. But, easily, one of the most iconic casting choices of the entire genre, namely due to how long he’s been in the role, has been Hugh Jackman in the role of the clawed mutant James ‘Logan’ Howlett AKA Wolverine. Jackman was first cast in the role in Bryan Singer’s first X-Men film back in 2000, and while some may have taken issue with a 6’2’’ Broadway actor taking on the role of a character who is a full foot shorter by comparison in the comics, it would end up becoming the definitive role of Jackman’s career. He would then go on to reprise his role in almost every subsequent X-Men film, either in a leading role or an awesome cameo. The popularity of the character even resulted in a few spin-offs. However, the Wolverine spin-offs have been a bit more hit-and-miss. The first of these, 2009’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine, was savaged by both critics and audiences for its flawed screenplay, disastrous deviations from the comics (e.g. ‘Deadpool’, a term used loosely in this case), and for being overcrowded with other mutants. Even Jackman himself has admitted that it didn’t turn out as well as he had hoped. Thankfully, he managed to get Wolverine a much more satisfying spin-off in 2013 when he teamed up with director James Mangold (whom he had previously worked with on 2001’s Kate and Leopold) for The Wolverine, based off the popular 1982 limited series of the same name by Chris Claremont and Frank Miller. And while not perfect, it at least did better with critics and audiences compared to the previous film. However, the film truly shines with its unrated Extended Edition. Debuting with the film’s home media release, this was easily the superior cut of the film, partially because it gave fans some of the R-rated Wolverine action that they had been hoping for after many years of PG-13 rated Wolverine action in the previous films.

But, this year, fans of the character are finally getting what they’ve always wanted, as Mangold and Jackman team up once again for their second Wolverine solo film, this one simply titled Logan. Like The Wolverine, the film takes inspiration from a famous storyline in the comics; in this case, Old Man Logan, a 2008 mini-series by Mark Millar and Steve McNiven which centers on an aged Wolverine in an alternate future where supervillains have taken over the world. However, in this instance, the film is not a direct adaptation of the source material, probably because some of the key characters featured in that story are over at Marvel Studios. But, of course, most of the hype surrounding this film is due to one primary reason, and that is that it is set to be Hugh Jackman’s final outing in his career-defining role. As such, he and Mangold seek to give the iconic X-Men member a fitting onscreen send-off. And, thanks in part to the success of last year’s Deadpool, the two were given the chance to do what fans of the character have been demanding since Jackman first debuted in the role; an R-rated Wolverine film that wasn’t tied down by the limits of the PG-13 rating that was given to every other X-Men film to date (minus Deadpool, of course). Having now watched this film, I can safely say that it does live up to its status as a gritty and brutal R-rated Wolverine film. But, of course, now the big question remains; does this new film manage to not only be the best of the Wolverine films but also serve as a fitting send-off for one of the superhero genre’s greatest icons? The answer… is a resounding yes.

The year is 2029 and most of the mutant population has gone extinct. One of the last surviving mutants, Logan (Hugh Jackman) AKA Wolverine, now spends most of his days working as a chauffeur in Texas. He also looks after his increasingly senile friend, telepath Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), with the help of mutant tracker Caliban (Stephen Merchant) as it becomes clear that Logan himself is starting to age as well due to the diminishing nature of his healing powers as the result of poisoning caused by the adamantium in his body. One day, he is approached by a woman named Gabriela (Elizabeth Rodriguez) who asks for his help in escorting her and a young girl named Laura (Dafne Keen) to a place known as ‘Eden’ in North Dakota. Logan reluctantly accepts but Gabriela is soon murdered and he, Xavier, and Laura begin to be pursued by Donald Pierce (Boyd Holbrook), the ruthless, cybernetically-enhanced head of security of the company that Gabriela used to work for, Transigen. Logan learns that the company had been experimenting with mutant DNA on the children that they had been breeding. When the children were set to be killed following the completion of a different mutant project known as ‘X-24’, Gabriela helped several of the children escape, Laura being one of them. Not only that, but it’s revealed that Laura was bred with Wolverine’s DNA, resulting in her not only having the same abilities as him but also technically being his ‘daughter’. Now forced to go on the run, the trio embarks on a road trip across the country in hopes of finding the mythical ‘Eden’.

One of the coolest things about director James Mangold’s two entries in the superhero genre is that both films are more than just ‘superhero films’. The Wolverine, being set in Japan, utilized a lot of the elements that are commonly seen in samurai action films, especially from a stylistic perspective. And in the case of Logan, he basically made a superhero film that was a western, a genre that he’s certainly well-versed in having directed the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma. It’s also worth noting that these last two Wolverine films don’t rely heavily on action sequences. Now, that’s not to say that they aren’t there because they are. But just keep in mind that this is a slow-moving film, especially considering that it’s over two hours long (admittedly, it may be just a tad bit overlong). But, that’s ultimately one of the key elements of the film’s narrative. The longer runtime allows you to become fully invested in the lead trio of Wolverine, Xavier, and Laura as they embark on their road-trip, so much so that even if you probably guessed in advance how it’s all going to end, the film ends on one of the best emotional notes in the history of the superhero genre. It also very much stands on its own compared to the other X-Men films; for one thing, they don’t tie it too much into the series’ overall continuity, which is probably for the best because it just would’ve sparked more debate over the series’ infamously convoluted canon. As for the action sequences, fans will be pleased to know that the film does live up to its status as an R-rated Wolverine film. These action sequences are intense and bloody and many of them will have you audibly saying ‘oh s***’ when they happen because of how brutal they are. Seriously, Mangold doesn’t hold back on them; not even Deadpool was this intense.

I’ve talked about how great Hugh Jackman has been in the role of Wolverine many, many times over the years (in fact, I just did so again the other day) so I’ll try not to repeat myself too much here. However, this may arguably be his greatest performance in the role to date and if so, it’s only fitting that it came from his last appearance as the character. Logan’s trademark hard-edged persona is still there, of course, but that’s well-mixed with the tragic nature of him being at a point in his life where he’s clearly past his prime. Patrick Stewart is also great as usual in the role of Xavier, whose role in the film is also one based in a tragic light as we sadly see the beloved telepath becoming more and more senile by the day. In fact, one of the darkest plot-points in the film establishes that Xavier inadvertently had a hand in the decimation of the mutant population due to the intense, seizure-induced psychic attacks that he now suffers from on a regular basis. Still, he works great off Logan, as always, and while the film does maintain a generally serious tone throughout, the R-rating does allow for some funny moments in which Stewart gets to be a bit cruder than he usually is in these films. The two are joined by newcomer Dafne Keen, who makes one hell of a great first impression in the role of the primarily mute but often quite volatile young girl who becomes the closest thing that Wolverine has ever had to a daughter. Stephen Merchant also has a memorable supporting role as Caliban, who had previously appeared in a much smaller role in X-Men: Apocalypse. As for the villains, they’re admittedly the weakest links of the film. Still, Boyd Holbrook proves to be an enjoyably despicable antagonist in the role of Donald Pierce, who’s shown to be quite a big fan of Ol’ Wolverine. The same can’t really be said, though, for Richard E. Grant, who plays Zander Rice, a scientist who is revealed to have an interesting personal connection to Wolverine. Despite this, he’s barely in the film.

Hugh Jackman has been in the role of Wolverine for nearly two decades. He was first cast in 1999 and has since appeared in all but one of the ten currently released films in the X-Men franchise. And with Logan, he and director James Mangold give the character the proper send-off that he deserves in a film that is pretty much the official finale of the original X-Men series. From an action perspective, this film delivers some of the most epic and brutal action sequences that the genre has ever seen. But, through all that bloodshed, stabbing, and numerous scenes of limbs being sliced off, the direction from Mangold is fantastic. This is an unrelentingly brutal but also fully emotional story in which the film’s [possibly] overlong runtime gives you plenty of time to care about the main characters in their endeavors. As such, if you’ve been a longtime fan of this franchise, it is practically guaranteed that you will get teary-eyed at one point or another while watching this film. Thus, not only is this the best Wolverine film, by far, but it’s one of the best installments of the entire X-Men series. Clearly, 2017’s lineup of live-action superhero films is off to a great start. And on that note, I’d like to salute the legend that is Hugh Jackman by saying thank you, Mr. Jackman, for all your contributions to both the X-Men franchise and the superhero genre in general. Because at the end of the day, the story of Weapon X ended on the best note possible.  

Rating: 5/5!

(P.S. When you go to see this film, be sure to get there in time before the film starts. Without giving anything away, there’s a special little clip that plays before the opening credits that’s sure to put a smile on your face.)

Top 10 Favorite Superhero Film/TV Casting Choices (Protagonists)

This weekend sees the release of the highly-anticipated superhero flick, Logan, the latest installment of the X-Men franchise. All the hype surrounding this film is due to it being the final appearance of Hugh Jackman in the title role of James ‘Logan’ Howlett AKA Wolverine, a role that he’s been occupying for almost two whole decades. He’s appeared in almost every X-Men film to date (possibly ‘every’ film if you somehow count Jackman’s photo cameo in Deadpool as a proper cameo, even though he’s not Wolverine in it), effectively making him one of the most iconic casting choices in the history of the superhero genre. So, with that in mind, today I’m going over one of the most important aspects of any great superhero film; casting. After all, it’s one of the primary decisions that goes into making any lead character in a superhero film or TV show work as well as they can and, for the most part, superhero films/TV shows have done a solid job with casting their main protagonists. Obviously, though, not every superhero film casting is going to be a success; there have been some disastrous casting choices in this genre over the years (e.g. George Clooney as Batman in Batman and Robin). That, and it’s undeniable that every superhero casting is going to subjected to a lot of premature backlash from fans who just don’t see that actor/actress in the role. Just look at what happened when Ben Affleck got cast as Batman. But, thankfully, a lot of these superhero films/TV shows have been much more successful in the past few years in terms of casting their protagonists. Thus, in honor of Logan’s release, I’m listing 10 of my personal favorite superhero portrayals from film and TV. Though I just want to note that, for this list, I’m only focusing on main protagonists of superhero films and TV shows, not the villains. Don’t worry, though, as I will do a ‘Top 10 Superhero Villain Performances’ post in the future; maybe even one on the best supporting characters from these films. Also, I’m not going to be doing this in any specific order aside from alternating between actors and actresses, as I wanted to split this up evenly amongst male and female leads, and the occasional connection between franchises. With that said, here are my Top 10 casting choices in superhero films and TV shows.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

Obviously, it was hard to narrow this down to 10 choices; thus, I’ve got quite a few Honorable Mentions to name. First up, we have my favorite Batman; Christian Bale from the Dark Knight trilogy. While many have given him flak for the infamous raspy voice that he uses while wearing the cowl, he’s probably gotten the most material to work with out of any Batman star to date. By comparison, Michael Keaton, who for the record was great in the role in the Tim Burton-directed films, was often underplayed in favor of the villains. And as for the voice, I don’t mind it; if it’s fun to imitate, then it’s all right by me (“SWEAR TO ME!!”). Then, there’s Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk in the recent MCU films, specifically the Avengers films. Ruffalo is the third actor to portray the character, after Eric Bana in the oft-forgotten Hulk film directed by Ang Lee from 2003 and Edward Norton, whom Ruffalo directly replaced in the role, in the also oft-forgotten MCU film The Incredible Hulk. And while both Bana and Norton did do solid jobs in the role, Ruffalo has easily been the best Bruce Banner to date, particularly due to his strong camaraderie with his co-stars. Going over into the X-Men franchise, you can’t forget about the ‘Merc with the Mouth’, Deadpool, played by Ryan Reynolds. Reynolds is arguably one of the most pitch-perfect superhero castings to date; heck, the comics directly referred to him when describing the character. And while, obviously, his first turn in the role, in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, was marred by major deviations from the source material, he got the chance to do the character justice in 2016’s smash hit Deadpool. Finally, we have one of the more ‘recent’ additions to the superhero genre; Tom Holland’s iteration of everyone’s favorite web-slinger, Peter Parker. While I’ll admit that I’m still a big fan of Andrew Garfield and am a bit disappointed that he didn’t get the chance to join the MCU once Marvel Studios struck a deal with Sony, Holland proved to be an excellent Spidey in Captain America: Civil War, nailing all the character’s defining traits.

And now, onto the main list…

MELISSA BENOIST – SUPERGIRL (SUPERGIRL)

To start things off, we have one of the newest shining stars of the superhero genre. In 2015, Melissa Benoist, fresh off her leading role on the show Glee as well as a memorable supporting role in the film Whiplash, took on the role of Kara Danvers AKA Kara Zor-El, cousin of Kal-El AKA Superman, in the TV adaptation of Supergirl. Originally premiering on CBS, the show has since moved over to ‘The CW’, where it is a much more natural fit with the other superhero shows that have been developed for the network by Greg Berlanti and Andrew Kreisberg. As for Supergirl, like I said in my review of Season 1 this past April, while the show’s light-hearted nature does result in some extremely cheesy moments from time to time, its heart is always in the right place and, as such, represents a lot of the best parts of the superhero genre. And, of course, one of the best aspects of this series, in general, has been Benoist in the lead role. When she’s in her ‘civilian identity’, Kara Danvers, she absolutely lights up the screen with her charisma, as well as the adorable awkwardness that sometimes comes from her trying to act normal when working off those who don’t know that she’s Supergirl. But, once she puts on the suit and cape, that awkwardness melts away and she conveys such great strength and passion as National City’s beloved heroine. And even as Season 2 of Supergirl has been introducing new characters, as well as new plotlines for returning characters, Kara has still been the main focal point of the entire show, hence why she’s very much become one of the genre’s best protagonists.

CHRISTOPHER REEVE – SUPERMAN (SUPERMAN I-IV)

Next up, we have the classic superhero film casting choice that started it all; Christopher Reeve as the Man of Steel himself, Superman. But it’s interesting to note that, at first, he wasn’t the original choice for the role. Initially, A-listers like Robert Redford, Burt Reynolds, and Paul Newman were considered for the part. But, when Richard Donner was brought in to direct the first Superman film in 1978, the filmmakers then switched gears and began searching for unknown actors. Reeve was in the running but was initially ignored for being too skinny. But, after going through a strict workout regime with David Prowse (AKA the original in-suit performer for Darth Vader in the Star Wars films) to gain the proper physique, Reeve finally got cast and, of course, absolutely killed it in the role. Simply put, he was the perfect embodiment of the beloved superhero; charismatic, good-looking, and noble in every way. And even when the series started to severely go downhill with the third and fourth films, with Reeve even having a story credit for the latter, he still always did a great job in the role. As such, his portrayal of Superman is so iconic that it is one that has admittedly been hard to top, though that’s not to say that there haven’t been other good portrayals of the character since Reeve. While he has been somewhat limited by certain narrative choices (e.g. a lack of given dialogue), I’d argue that Henry Cavill has done a good job so far as the character in the current-era DC Extended Universe films. However, like I said, sometimes he has been limited by the material that he’s been given, which is sad because his turn in 2015’s The Man from U.N.C.L.E. shows that he does have the proper charisma for the role. And then there’s Tyler Hoechlin, who I’d argue was very Reeve-esque during his turn in the role in Season 2 of Supergirl. In fact, dare I say it, Hoechlin’s been the best Superman since Reeve.

JENNIFER LAWRENCE – MYSTIQUE (X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, X-MEN: APOCALYPSE)

I’m aware that this choice may be a bit controversial (I’ll explain why in a little bit) but I think that Jennifer Lawrence has done an excellent job in the role of the shape-shifting femme fatale Mystique in the First Class-era X-Men films. She first appeared in the series’ 2011 ‘reboot’ X-Men: First Class, which pulled an interesting narrative retcon by having her become the foster sister of Charles Xavier AKA Professor X. I say ‘interesting’ because, obviously, this wasn’t brought up at all in the original X-Men trilogy, even though the next film in the series ended up wiping those films from the continuity. However, I do think that it was an interesting story route. Because once Magneto enters the picture, Mystique finds herself conflicted between the ideologies of him and Charles. Specifically, this was due to a fear of how people would react to her in her natural blue (and, well, naked (no other way around it)) form. While Charles urged her to keep her blue form hidden, Magneto encouraged her to embrace it. Thus, at the end of the film, she ends up leaving with Erik, though it should be noted that Charles did encourage her to go with him because he knew that ‘it’s what she wanted’. This then leads into Days of Future Past, in which she becomes the main focal point of the plot as it's established that her assassination of scientist Bolivar Trask was the catalyst for the events that resulted in the desolate, dystopian future that part of the film is set in. Like First Class, a lot of her character development comes in the form of her ties to both Charles and Magneto. While her time with Magneto has led her into becoming more like the cold-blooded femme fatale that we saw in the original trilogy (it’s noted in the film that killing Trask would’ve been the moment when she truly became ‘Mystique’), it’s also clear that there’s still some humanity left in her, which Xavier uses to convince her to not kill Trask, partially by admitting his mistake in trying to control her life all these years. The result is easily Lawrence’s best performance in the role...

…which then brings us to Apocalypse, and this is where that ‘controversy’ that I mentioned earlier comes into play. Because, of course, as many of us know. Apocalypse ended up attracting a mixed response from critics and audiences upon release. And one of the reasons why was due to Lawrence. Quite a lot of critics felt that Lawrence phoned it in for Apocalypse; a sign of her showing growing disinterest in the franchise, partially due to having to go through the elaborate makeup process to get into character even though that process had become more simplified after First Class. As for me, though, I didn’t think she phoned it in; maybe I’m just not good at sensing this sort of thing but I thought she was just as good as she was in the other films (though I will say DOFP is still her best turn in the role). Not only that, but Apocalypse is, in a way, kind of her story. After unintentionally becoming a ‘hero’ following the events in Washington D.C. at the end of DOFP, she is seen to be maintaining a low profile while trying to protect some of her fellow mutants all over the world. But, once the ‘god’ mutant Apocalypse reawakens, she begins to embrace her role as the leader of the next generation of X-Men as she leads them into battle against him. And at the end of the film, she and Beast are seen training the team’s new recruits. Right now, it’s unclear where the franchise will go from here. Are they going to continue from where they left off in Apocalypse with the new cast? If so, hopefully, they let the new cast become the main characters of future films. The First Class-era was primarily based around Xavier, Mystique, and Magneto and while I won’t mind if they come back for future films in supporting roles, I think it’s safe to say that their story arcs are done for the most part. Still, I think Lawrence was an excellent addition to the First Class-era as the second iteration of Mystique. In fact, I kind of prefer her version of the character over Rebecca Romjin’s from the original trilogy. I’m not saying that Romjin was bad as Mystique but, like Christian Bale compared to Michael Keaton as Batman, I think Lawrence has just had better material to work with. Speaking of her two main co-stars…  

MICHAEL FASSBENDER AND JAMES MCAVOY– MAGNETO AND PROFESSOR X (X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, X-MEN: APOCALYPSE)

From one First Class-era star to another, now we have the duo of Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy, who have been killing it in the roles of the metal-controlling mutant Erik Lehnsherr AKA Magneto and the world’s most powerful telepath, Charles Xavier AKA Professor X. In the original X-Men films, the characters were played by the legendary Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart, respectively. Both did fantastic jobs in their roles but it’s come to the point where Fassbender and McAvoy have arguably outshined their predecessors thanks to the recent trilogy. First up, let’s talk about Fassbender as Magneto. In the three X-Men films that he’s appeared in, Fassbender has been the major standout of two of them. The first of these was First Class, which is fitting because, ultimately, First Class was Magneto’s story. While the film was solidly balanced in terms of the roles of him and Xavier, showing how the two first met, became friends, and were then divided on their views of humanity, a lot of the plot of First Class revolved around Magneto. The film opens with a re-do of the opening scene from the original X-Men film, in which a young Magneto is separated from his parents at Auschwitz and attracts attention by using his powers to bend a metal gate. This scene is then expanded upon by showing that this then led to Erik becoming a pawn of Nazi scientist and fellow mutant Sebastian Shaw. Shaw even kills Erik’s mother in his attempts to manipulate Erik into using his powers. Thus, most of the film sees Erik attempting to track down and kill Shaw, and despite Xavier’s attempts to dissuade him from this (“Killing Shaw will not bring you peace.”), Erik ignores the advice of his friend and kills Shaw, showing that while they may have been enemies, he did share his views on the divide between humans and mutants. And after accidentally causing Xavier to be paralyzed from the waist down, Magneto leaves to start his war against humanity for what they’ve done to him and his fellow mutants. 

Fassbender returned in Days of Future Past alongside Ian McKellen as the older Magneto. Sadly, the two never shared a scene together like James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart did in the film but it wasn’t a big loss and, seeing how the story takes place in two separate eras, you could say that it was much more plausible to have the two telepaths interact with each other instead of the two metal-benders. It’s also worth noting that, in this instance, Days of Future Past was more Xavier’s story than Magneto’s. Thus, Magneto was more of a supporting ‘protagonist’ (term used loosely because he is Magneto) this time around. Set primarily in the 70’s, he is first seen being held in prison for being the alleged assassin of John F. Kennedy as evident by the curvature of the bullet that killed him, although he later reveals that he was trying to save Kennedy because he learned that he too was a mutant. Wolverine, Xavier, and Beast (with the help of Quicksilver) break him out of prison so that they can acquire his help in preventing Mystique from killing Bolivar Trask. However, Magneto then betrays them by trying to kill Mystique instead, and once he learns about Trask’s newest invention, the Sentinels, he uses his powers to take control of them and, as usual, proceeds to go off against humanity. He tries to kill President Nixon and his Cabinet but Mystique prevents him from doing so, setting up the events of the sequel. In short, he may not have been the ‘main character’ this time around but Fassbender was still great in the role. And yes, I’m saying this even after he recently said in an interview that he feels like his performance in this film was mostly just him yelling at people (e.g. the scene where he gets hostile with Xavier while on a plane).   

Fassbender’s most recent appearance as Magneto in X-Men: Apocalypse saw him once again end up as the standout of the film, just like in First Class. And in this instance, it was by giving him the most emotional bits of character development in the film. Following the events of DOFP, it’s shown that Erik was forced to go on the run after the events in D.C. He ends up in Poland, where he takes on the name Henryk, gets a job, ironically as a metalworker, and starts up a family, with his wife, Magda, aware of his past and his daughter Nina being a mutant as well, with the ability to command animals. When he ends up inadvertently revealing his powers to his co-workers, he’s then ratted out to the police, who accidentally end up killing Magda and Nina when they confront him. As revenge, Erik kills them in the same manner that he killed Shaw in First Class; by forcing the Nazi coin that he was coerced into trying to manipulate right through them (literally). It’s easily the most emotional scene in the film and is the main reason why I completely disagree with the argument that Apocalypse lacked emotional depth. This then leads to him being approached by Apocalypse and persuaded into being the fourth member of the Horsemen. With enhanced powers (courtesy of Apocalypse) and a refueled hatred for humanity, Magneto works alongside Apocalypse in his plans to conquer the Earth but, after some convincing from Mystique and Quicksilver (who is revealed to be his son, though he doesn’t reveal that to Magneto just yet), Magneto comes to his senses to help the X-Men take down the god mutant. As the film ends, he heads out on his own once again after helping to rebuild the X-Mansion. Like I said earlier with Mystique, it’s unclear if this is the last time that we’ll be seeing Magneto for a while. But, if it is, at least we got a great trilogy-worth of performances from Michael Fassbender in the role.

And now let’s move onto James McAvoy as Xavier. I’ll admit that when First Class came out, I wasn’t exactly sure how I would feel about McAvoy in the role following Patrick Stewart’s excellent take on the character in the original X-Men trilogy. But, just like how the film ended up being a surprise success, he proved to be a great fit in the role. He had the ‘wise mentor’ persona down well but it was also kind of cool to see a young Xavier that, prior to the incident that cost him his legs, was a lot more high-spirited and even a bit of a party animal. That starts to change once he meets Magneto and becomes the leader of the first class of X-Men. But, of course, that friendship between Xavier and Magneto fades once their differing views on the human-mutant divide come into play, and the film ends with Xavier paralyzed from the waist down due to Magneto deflecting a bullet aimed at him. This, as well as the loss of his foster sister Mystique to Erik’s cause, affects him heavily, which we clearly see when he first appears in DOFP. 10 years after the events of First Class, it’s established that Xavier’s school for mutants was heavily shuttered by the Vietnam War. Thus, he’s become a bitter and pessimistic drunk due to the failure of his school. He’s also regained the use of his legs thanks to a serum made by Hank McCoy but this serum also suppresses his powers, which at this point he’s okay with so that he doesn’t have to endure the pain of listening to all the voices in his head anymore. But, when Wolverine comes into the picture to seek his help, Xavier ends up embarking on a journey to regain his faith in humanity. As I’ve said numerous times already, Xavier’s arc in this film is the reason why DOFP is ultimately his story and it results in McAvoy’s greatest performance in the role. That continues in Apocalypse, which sees Xavier finally adopt his definitive bald look. And of the trilogy’s three main leads, it seems like McAvoy is the most likely of them to return in a future film.  

CHLOE BENNET – QUAKE (MARVEL’S AGENTS OF SHIELD)

Going into the realm of superhero TV for my next pick, we’ve got the Inhuman agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. from Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD, Daisy Johnson AKA Quake, played by Chloe Bennet. Daisy has easily had one of the biggest arcs in the entire show. At first, we knew her as the mysterious hacker Skye, who Agent Phil Coulson recruited to join his team of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents despite her ties to the rogue hacktivist group, the Rising Tide. Soon, though, she proved herself to be a loyal S.H.I.E.L.D. agent as she helped Coulson and co. take down the growing threat of HYDRA within the organization. And then, in the show’s second season, things began to change once her real identity was revealed. In the Season 1 episode ‘Seeds’, we learn that Skye had been deemed as an 0-8-4 (S.H.I.E.L.D. code for ‘object of unknown origin’) when she was just a baby. Halfway through Season 2, in the episode ‘What They Become’, the truth behind her ‘unknown origin’ was revealed. A run-in with the mysterious substance known as Terrigen Mist revealed that she was a member of the race of powered beings known as Inhumans and that her real name was Daisy Johnson. Thus, the rest of Season 2 consisted of her struggling to embrace her newfound earthquake-causing powers. At one point, she ends up in the Inhuman paradise known as Afterlife, where she is reunited with her mother, Jiaying. However, when Jiaying’s intentions are shown to be quite sinister (e.g. planning to unleash the Terrigen Mist upon humanity), Daisy is forced to fight her own mother, reaffirming her loyalties to Coulson and S.H.I.E.L.D in the process.

By Season 3, we see that Daisy has embraced a newfound confidence in her Inhuman identity, as she helps S.H.I.E.L.D. search for and protect her fellow Inhumans from enemy threats. Some of these Inhumans are even recruited into a special team, the ‘Secret Warriors’. However, this season ended up putting Daisy through the emotional wringer. In the episode ‘Spacetime’, she received a vision from another Inhuman foretelling the impending death of a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, which haunted her for the rest of the season. And then, if that wasn’t enough, two episodes later in ‘The Team’, it was revealed that she had been brainwashed by the ancient Inhuman creature known as Hive, who at that point had taken over the body of S.H.I.E.L.D. traitor/Hydra agent Grant Ward, who happened to be Daisy’s love interest back in Season 1 prior to that reveal. While she does get brought back to normal by the season’s end, we see that this ordeal has severely affected her on a mental level. And then, to make matters worse, the agent whose death she foresaw ends up being her new love interest, fellow Inhuman Lincoln Campbell. Thus, as Season 4 begins, it’s revealed that she has left S.H.I.E.L.D. and has become a vigilante known as ‘Quake’. Since the show’s currently in the middle of the fourth season, I won’t get into any major details in regards to what happens in it just yet (that is, of course, until my inevitable review of Season 4). While I will say, though, is that it’s quite interesting to see Daisy go down a darker route than before, haunted by some of the recent tragedies in her life.  

As I’ve stated numerous times in my annual season reviews of AoS, Daisy has consistently been one of my favorite characters on the show. Performance-wise, Bennet has done a fantastic job in the role, especially when handling the trademark snappy dialogue that’s usually seen in a Joss Whedon-produced show. At the same time, like I said before, Daisy’s also arguably gotten the most material to work with out of any character in the entire series. From her starting out as the mysterious hacker with the equally mysterious past to becoming the initially scared but later confident superhero who constantly fights for the safety and rights of her fellow Inhumans, she’s very much been the catalyst for the introduction of the Inhumans into the MCU. On that note, a new Inhumans show is set to come out this fall on ABC, after debuting the first two episodes in IMAX theaters. Presumably, this is a replacement for the Inhumans film that was originally announced as a part of Phase 3 of the MCU films but was then taken off the studio’s schedule last year. On that note, though, some of the crew at Marvel (e.g. producer Kevin Feige) have stated that this doesn’t mean that the project is ‘fully canceled’. What does that mean? Well, if you ask me, I’m guessing that this was probably because they figured that a TV show was a better way to properly introduce the series’ mythos to audiences. Either way, it’s also been stated that the new show is more of its own thing than an Agents of SHIELD spin-off, so it’s uncertain if Daisy will appear in it at any point. However, I hope that they figure out a way for her to appear in some way, even if it’s just for a cameo; because after all, it was primarily thanks to her that the Inhumans managed to get a proper introduction in the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe.

ROBERT DOWNEY JR. – IRON MAN (MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE)

Hands down, one of the most perfect casting choices in the history of the superhero genre. Nowadays, it’s hard to imagine anyone else in the role and that’s because RDJ was such a perfect live-action representation of the genius billionaire playboy philanthropist Tony Stark. And sure, maybe part of it was due to his infamous legal troubles in the past but, at the same time, it’s undeniable that this was the role that helped relaunch Downey Jr’s career. A lot of this was thanks to the solid emotional arc that Tony went through in the first film. After an incident in which he’s captured by terrorists and forced to build weapons for them, he instead builds a suit of armor and uses it to become the superhero known as Iron Man. The rest is history, and through it all, Downey Jr. has consistently maintained the character’s slightly arrogant but still all-around likable persona. Tony Stark’s also been through a lot in the MCU from a story perspective. For example, in Iron Man 3, he found himself having to come to grips with the fact that he’s just one small part of a larger universe; that and having to deal with the PTSD that came from his near-death experience in the first Avengers. And then, in Age of Ultron, he’s the one responsible for the creation of Ultron, the sentient A.I. hell-bent on world domination. Thus, when he decides to agree with the signing of the Sokovia Accords in Captain America: Civil War, it’s easy to see why he went this route. As my good friend and fellow film critic Matthew Goudreau has pointed out, a lot of the MCU has been Tony trying to atone for his mistakes. Because even when Civil War forced him into being the opposition to Captain America’s ‘Pro-Superheroes’ side, there were still times where you could sympathize with Tony’s stance on the matter, like when he learns that Cap’s friend Bucky was the one who killed his parents. So, in short, thanks to this great series-long arc, it’s easy to see why Tony Stark has been one of the most popular protagonists of the entire franchise. Because, after all, without Robert Downey Jr. and the original Iron Man, there probably wouldn’t have been an MCU in the first place. 

SCARLETT JOHANSSON – BLACK WIDOW (MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE)

Next up, we have the MCU’s first major female lead; Natasha Romanoff AKA Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson. Black Widow’s come a long way since her first appearance in Iron Man 2, especially because, admittedly, it took a little while before Johansson really settled into the role. That’s not to say that she was bad in Iron Man 2 but it’s clear that she was hindered by the generally cluttered nature of that film’s plot. Thankfully, that changed once she returned for the first Avengers. Because even though that film obviously saw her become one of many main characters, Johansson was clearly more comfortable in the role this time around, while Black Widow also got some nice material to work with in the film. For example, when fellow agent Clint Barton AKA Hawkeye was brainwashed by Loki, Romanoff showed some noticeable concern, implying a personal connection between the two. And while the next Avengers film revealed that Hawkeye was married to someone else, it’s clear that the two had some history, which would probably explain the line in the first Avengers in which the two bring up an old mission in Budapest, with Hawkeye noting that he remembers Budapest a lot differently than her. Then there was also the growing relationship between her and Bruce Banner. This relationship is focused on more in the sequel but it’s there nevertheless, with Black Widow being the one who first approached Bruce to join the Avengers. In her next appearance, she teamed up with Captain America in The Winter Soldier, serving as an excellent foil to Cap while still being just as badass as she’s been in the other films, so much so that I’d say this was Johansson’s best performance in the role.

And now, it’s time to once again bring up the controversy surrounding her role in Age of Ultron, and no, I’m not referring to the lack of Black Widow merchandise during the film’s release. I’m referring more to her role in the film itself, namely through her relationship with Bruce. As I just stated earlier, I wasn’t bothered by them being linked romantically because you can at least see hints of it in the first Avengers film. The other major problem that many people had with her role in the film came during a scene between her and Bruce in which she admits that she yearns for a normal life after everything she’s done. They particularly got worked up over a line where she tells him that ‘he’s not the only monster’ on the team, a reference to her days training in the Black Widow program, where she lost the ability to have kids. In the first few days of the film’s release, Joss Whedon was hounded with the severe blowback that came from this. However, I honestly don’t see what’s so bad about it; it didn’t diminish Natasha’s value to the team or anything. It was just her expressing her desire for a normal life, something that’s been so hard for her as of late. It also perfectly sets up why she, to the surprise of many, sided with Iron Man in Civil War; clearly, she’s ashamed of a lot of things that happened in her past. In other words, the ‘red on her ledger’ that was mentioned in the first Avengers. And even though her allegiance is with Iron Man in that film, it’s clear that she’s still close to Cap, as evident in the scene where she talks to him after Peggy Carter’s funeral and notes that she’s there so that he wouldn’t be alone. This friendship then comes into play later when she lets Cap and Bucky escape via Quinjet during the airport battle so they can go after Zemo. Now, of course, a lot of the discussion regarding Black Widow’s role in the MCU has stemmed from all the demand for a Black Widow film, which has yet to happen. I hope that it does happen but at the same time, I’m not furiously demanding it either. I’m sure that it’ll happen soon, thereby affirming Black Widow’s status as a vital part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

(P.S. I hear Joss Whedon is being considered for it; if so, let him do it!)

CHRIS EVANS – CAPTAIN AMERICA (MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE)

When cast in 2011’s Captain America: The First Avenger, Chris Evans took on the second major superhero role of his career as Steve Rogers AKA Captain America. He previously starred as Johnny Storm, AKA the Human Torch, in the 2005 Fantastic Four film and its 2007 sequel, Rise of the Silver Surfer. And while both films received mixed to negative reactions from critics and audiences, many agreed that he was at least one of its best parts. However, this may have also led to some backlash from fans when he was cast as Captain America due to the major differences between the two characters. But, in the end, Evans absolutely nailed it. Just like RDJ as Iron Man, he conveyed all the great character traits of the good-natured weakling from Brooklyn who, through science, becomes the physically enhanced soldier, Captain America. Also like RDJ, Evans has consistently maintained this persona throughout the entire franchise, even after the character gets sucked into modern times at the end of First Avenger. This subsequent ‘fish out of water’ characterization especially comes into play in Winter Soldier, where he finds that his old-school, ‘black and white’ war ideologies don’t match up with the more uncertain and less compromising attitudes of present day society. As such, it’ll be interesting to see where his story arc goes from here after Civil War, especially after the Russo brothers stated in an interview that he stopped being ‘Captain America’ after the scene in which he leaves his iconic shield behind after the final battle against Tony. Either way, Evans is yet another valuable part of the Marvel Universe and, dare I say, it may have gotten to the point where he’s even outshined RDJ as perhaps the franchise’s best lead.

HAYLEY ATWELL – PEGGY CARTER (MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE)

Ok, this is the only instance in which I’m technically cheating here by having a character on this list that isn’t primarily a ‘superhero’. However, because Peggy ended up becoming the lead of her own show, Agent Carter, I think that she deserves some recognition. Because although Agent Carter was sadly canceled after Season 2, it’s clear that the character has had a major impact on the genre without ever having superpowers. Hayley Atwell’s first appearance as the Strategic Scientific Reserve agent turned co-founder of S.H.I.E.L.D. was in Captain America: The First Avenger and right out of the gate, she established herself as one of the best ‘love interests’ of the superhero genre by being a love interest who was more than capable of taking care of things herself. Literally, her first scene in the film sees her punch a soldier right in the face when he tries to hit on her. She soon befriends Steve Rogers prior to his transformation into Captain America, admiring his intelligence, honesty, and bravery despite his scrawny build. This friendship soon leads into a romance that sadly ends in tragedy. In what is easily the most emotional scene of the film, Steve sacrifices himself by crashing the Red Skull’s plane into the Arctic while Peggy talks to him over the radio, trying to figure out a way to get him out of the situation. Obviously, we know that this didn’t end up killing Steve; it’s just that it led to him being frozen in time for nearly 7 decades (Saddest line in the entire film? “I had a date…”). Thankfully, for Steve, he learns that Peggy is still alive by the time that he’s thawed out, resulting in an emotionally heartbreaking scene in Winter Soldier in which the two are reunited but, sadly, Peggy is starting to suffer from Alzheimer’s. She finally passes away in Civil War, as her niece, Sharon Carter, delivers a touching eulogy at her funeral that inspires Cap to stand by his stance on the controversial Sokovia Accords (“Even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, ‘No, you move’”)

2 years after the release of First Avenger, Atwell reprised her role as Peggy in one of Marvel’s One-Shot short films, Agent Carter, which was released on home media alongside Iron Man 3. The critical success of that short immediately led to the development of a TV series based around everyone’s favorite SSR operative, Marvel’s Agent Carter. Aired during the midseason break of Marvel Studios’ other ABC show, Agents of SHIELD, the series gave Atwell a true chance to shine in the role of Peggy, who in the show, set one year after the events of the film, continued to work for the SSR while also struggling to cope with the sexism of the era. But, even though she frequently found herself being undervalued by other members of the SSR, she truly proves herself by being the one who is primarily responsible for taking down the organization’s enemies. Really, the moment that truly defined her as one of the best characters in the MCU occurs in the Season 1 finale, ‘Valediction’. After taking down the organization known as Leviathan, Peggy earns the respect of her colleagues but the media ends up giving fellow SSR agent Jack Thompson the credit instead for stopping them. However, Peggy assures fellow agent Daniel Sousa that it doesn’t matter to her if she gets credit for what she does because no matter what, she ‘knows her value’. And that, ultimately, is why Peggy is one of the brightest stars of the MCU; she’s a strong-willed, no-nonsense woman in a time when no one expected much out of her. And while it’s sad that Agent Carter ended up getting canceled after only two seasons, especially after Season 2 ended on an unresolved cliffhanger, Peggy’s impact as a role model to women is undeniable.           

HUGH JACKMAN – WOLVERINE (X-MEN FILMS)

And finally, we bring it all back to the one whose tenure in the role of his iconic character is coming to an end this weekend with Logan; Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Though it’s interesting to note that when the original X-Men film was being made, Jackman wasn’t the first one that director Bryan Singer cast in the role. Dougray Scott was initially cast in the part before turning it down due to scheduling conflicts with a different blockbuster from that year, Mission Impossible 2. And with no disrespect to Mr. Scott, I think we can all agree that this was ultimately for the best. Because even though there may have probably been some dissent from some comic book fans due to a 6’2’’ Broadway star playing a character that’s 5’3’’ in the comics, Jackman absolutely nailed it in the role, from the stubborn attitude to the moments in which he’s fueled with berserker rage. Now, obviously, as many have pointed out, the films’ overt focus on Wolverine and his story sometimes led to the underdevelopment of other characters, particularly Cyclops (James Marsden), who was mainly there to be part of the love triangle that Wolverine and Jean Grey were also involved in. Nevertheless, it was never too much of a big loss thanks to Jackman’s consistently excellent performances in the role. It’s easy to see why he became the definitive star of the franchise, appearing in almost every single film in the series up until Logan. And whenever he wasn’t in a lead role, he just made an awesome cameo, like in First Class, where he tersely rebuffs the offer of Xavier and Magneto to join them, and Apocalypse, where he’s unleashed in his Weapon X form upon the forces of Colonel William Stryker. That and his scene in Apocalypse ends with a hilariously meta quote from Cyclops (“Hope that’s the last we’ve seen of that guy…”).     

If I had to pick Jackman’s best performance in the role (pre-Logan, even though by the time this is posted, I’ll have already seen the new film), it would have to be in Days of Future Past. And the main reason why is because this could’ve just easily been another case of Wolverine hogging the spotlight, as the film sees him being the one that is sent back in time instead of Kitty Pryde like it was in the comics (or Bishop in the case of the 90’s animated series). However, the film does explain the logistical reasoning behind this as it’s established that Wolverine’s healing abilities make him the only one who’s capable of surviving a trip that far back into the past. Not only that, but it’s also fun to see the hot-tempered Wolverine try and be the ‘patient and peaceful’ time-traveler who must convince people that he’s from the future, which obviously doesn’t always go well (“Peaceful thoughts…”). But the coolest thing about Wolverine’s role in the overall story is that he’s ultimately not the main character. Don’t get me wrong, he’s still a vital part of the story but in this instance, it’s a much more reserved role compared to the other films. Ultimately, Jackman ends up being the bridge between the original series and the First Class-era films and because the film basically serves as a send-off for the cast of the former, he lets the First Class-era stars like James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender lead the way. So, in short, while it may not have always been a smooth journey (*cough* Origins *cough*), Jackman will forever be known as one of the most iconic casting choices in the history of the superhero genre.

And those are 10 (technically 11 since I paired McAvoy and Fassbender together) of my personal favorite casting choices in the superhero film genre. Thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with some of your favorite superhero casting choices, especially if they’re ones that I didn’t mention here.