Marvel's 'Phase 2': Part 2: Other Projects

(This is Part 2 of a look into Marvel's upcoming plans to expand their Cinematic Universe. If you haven't read Part 1 yet, I suggest you read that first. Also, like before, this is just based on what has been given so far.)



We've taken care of the next few films for Marvel's lead members of The Avengers, so the question now is what else does Marvel have planned up their sleeves? After all, now that Marvel has confirmed that 'Avengers 2' is in the works and that Joss Whedon will return to write and direct the film, fans are certainly anticipating to see what new characters will be introduced into this cinematic universe that Marvel has created. The following entry will mainly revolve around the two films that Marvel has confirmed recently to be in the works. However, there are certainly many more characters who might join the team for the sequel. Who could those heroes be? Let's not waste any more time and get the ball rolling...



At this year's San Diego Comic Con, Marvel revealed some of their plans for upcoming movies now that Avengers has come and gone with a bang (over 1 billion, to be exact). First, they showed off footage from 'Iron Man 3' and then they revealed the titles for the then-unnamed sequels to Thor and Captain America with 'The Dark World' and 'The Winter Soldier', respectively. But those weren't the only films that Marvel showed off at the event as they also revealed two other movies that were confirmed to be in production. One of these films was a solo film that had already been in the works for a long time while the other film will be about a superhero team that most people might not even know about.





The solo project was 'Ant-Man', a project that has been in development since about 2007. The film will be directed by Edgar Wright and the script will be written by both Wright and his partner Joe Cornish. According to Wright, this new film will include some humorous moments, but it will not be a comedy or a spoof, something Wright has been generally known for having directed 'Shaun of the Dead', 'Hot Fuzz', and 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World'. This new movie will feature two incarnations of the character. The first will be the original 'Ant-Man' Henry Pym, who will be Ant-Man during the 1960's. The present version of Ant-Man will be the character Scott Lang, who will take up the mantle of Pym as Ant-Man. Wright has had to alter his script a couple of times in order to fit the chronology of Marvel's universe. Wright has directed test footage at this point and reports say that he will be directing the post-credits scene for 'Iron Man 3' which will feature Ant-Man. At this point, there is no confirmed release date for Edgar Wright's 'Ant-Man'.



The other film that Marvel announced, though, has a confirmed date of August 1, 2014. The characters in question are members of another Marvel superhero team, the Guardians of the Galaxy. This team of intergalactic superheroes first got its start in 1969, but the new film will be based around the 2008 version of the team. It has also been reported that this film will serve as the introduction for the character of Thanos, AKA the big-grinning purple alien from the end credits of 'The Avengers'. So far, there's been no confirmation as to the director of this project but it is likely Marvel will hire someone soon.





Like with the other big name Marvel films that are coming out in the future, we have yet to see any footage from either of these two movies to have any opinion on how they will turn out. In terms of Ant-Man, I'm certainly behind having a director like Edgar Wright helm the project. Wright has certainly proven that he's a talented director and as shown by his filmography he can do some really creative things behind the camera. But the Guardians movie is a different story. I'll be honest, when this project was first confirmed, I had no idea who the **** these guys where and I'm certain a lot of you don't know either. That's not a good sign for a new film when not a lot of people probably don't know a single thing about the characters in it. Plus, is this really the best place to introduce Thanos? I'd much rather wait until 'Avengers 2' if you ask me.



But enough of those two films. There's still the issue of what other characters Marvel might introduce into the team... Well, not being a huge comic book reader, I can't really give my opinion on what characters could join the team. That's more suited for people who have read the comics. All in all, I'm just a guy who's pumped to see what's next for our heroes and I'm eagerly awaiting 'Iron Man 3', 'Thor: The Dark World', 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' and of course, 'Avengers 2'. Sure, I'll even include 'Ant-Man' at this point. Joss Whedon certainly proved that he could deliver an awesome superhero movie with the first Avengers, so I have full faith in him that he can deliver again with the sequel. So that's about all I have to say about this. This has been a look at what Marvel has planned for their Universe now that they have successfully made it all come together. Thanks for reading.

Marvel's 'Phase II': PART 1 (The 'Big Guns')

(Keep in mind that this entry is based on what has been given to us so far in regards to these upcoming movies, as we are still many months (or even a few years) from the dates that they will be released to theaters)

It has now been more than three months since 'The Avengers' hit the big screen. As you might have guessed (after all, with a total gross of more than 1 billion, you must have seen it), it was a superhero film that clearly lived up to the hype that was around ever since the original Iron Man film back in 2008 and truly took comic book movies to the next level. Now that Marvel has hit the jackpot with 'Avengers', the question now is how will Marvel move on with this universe that they have created now that they have succeeded with their original plan. Well, that's what we're looking at today, their 'Phase 2'. Of course, Marvel is now hard at work on sequels for Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America but what other characters from the long line of Marvel's heroes will join the Avengers in the obvious sequel that will come out sooner or later for a company that is now owned by Disney? Well, let's start off with the 'Big 3' of the Avengers...





First up on the schedule for Marvel is Iron Man 3. It's safe to say that the Iron Man franchise has become the crown jewel of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Not only was it the film that jumpstarted the whole universe in the first place, but the two Iron Man movies are the highest-grossing 'Pre-Avenger' films out of the five movies that came before the ultimate team-up. This new Iron Man movie will also see a change in direction. Because he is working on a film based around Disneyland, Jon Favreau will not be helming this new film and is instead replaced by Shane Black. Some of you may not know who this guy is, but he does have a solid line of work to his name, most notably the first two 'Lethal Weapon' movies. He also directed the 2005 critical hit 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' which starred Tony Stark himself, Robert Downey Jr.



From what has reported so far, this film will be based on the 'Extremis' storyline from the Iron Man comics, a storyline that actually has been an integral part of the previous two Iron Man movies. The origin for Stark as Iron Man seen during this storyline was used in the first film and the plotline of Tony trying to find a cure for the palladium poisoning he was experiencing in Iron Man 2 gave way to his new armor, which resembled armor from that storyline. The film will also be partially filmed in China, where it will be co-financed and distributed there by DMG Entertainment. Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle will reprise their roles as Pepper Potts and James Rhodes, respectively, and new members of the cast include Ben Kingsley as 'The Mandarin', Guy Pearce as scientist Aldrich Killian and Rebecca Hall as Dr. Maya Hansen. Iron Man 3 will hit theaters on May 3, 2013, continuing the tradition of having Marvel release a film on the first week of May every year since Spider-Man 3 in 2007.



Next up for Marvel will be the sequel to 'Thor', 'Thor: The Dark World'. Surprisingly, Thor 2 will not be released in summer but instead during November, the 8th of November to be exact. It is a date that you would probably never expect to see a superhero film be released, especially in today's era of blockbusters. This is most likely because 'Thor 2' had a rather troubled pre-production which forced it to be moved from its original July 26th release date. Before Alan Taylor, who has directed episodes of 'Sopranos', 'Man Men', 'Boardwalk Empire', and 'Game of Thrones', was announced as director, there were two other directors that were first hired for the job. The first director Marvel considered was Brian Kirk who, like Taylor, had directed episodes of Game of Thrones. Kirk soon left due to 'contractual problems' and was replaced by Patty Jenkins, director of the film 'Monster'. Jenkins would ultimately leave the project due to 'creative differences' and Taylor was hired instead to take the place of the original film's director, Kenneth Branagh.



While the original Thor was restricted only to Thor's homeworld of Asgard, the icy world of Jotunheim, and our own planet Earth, Thor 2 will, according to producer Kevin Feige, "take Thor literally to other worlds" so it seems likely that this sequel will explore more into the nine realms of the cosmos. Most of the actors from the first movie are slated to return, with the exception of Joshua Dallas (Fandral) who has commitments to ABC's 'Once Upon a Time'. In his place will be Zachary Levi, who was considered for the role originally for the first film, but couldn't take the role due to obligations towards his show 'Chuck'. Christopher Eccleston has been cast as Malekith the Accursed, the ruler of the race known as the Dark Elves from the realm of Svartalfheim.





Closing out the 'Big' 3' superheroes of The Avengers will be Captain America, whose next movie, 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier', will see a release in 2014. Like 'Thor 2', the date is rather unique for a superhero movie, as it is set to be released on April 4th, 2014. The reason why it is not taking the spot during the first week of May is because that is the set date for 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2'. Like with the new sequels to Iron Man and Thor, this new Captain America will also see a change in directors. This time, there are two men helming the film, Anthony and Joe Russo, most notable for being Executive Producers on the cult hit show 'Community' on NBC. From the title, it seems clear that the writers will bring back the character of James 'Bucky' Barnes, who was supposedly killed off in 'The First Avenger' as in the comics, he becomes The Winter Soldier, an enemy of Captain America.







So that's what happening for Marvel down the line when it comes to the established major superheroes of 'The Avengers'. But wait, what about the Hulk? Along with Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor, The Hulk was the only other member of the team who had a movie of his own before 'Avengers' and Mark Ruffalo was universally praised for his performance as Bruce Banner so it seems obvious for a new Hulk film starring Ruffalo to happen, right? Well sadly at this point, no official 'Hulk' film has been confirmed. Just a piece of advice, Marvel; when you do make the movie, don't recast Ruffalo. That's the whole reason why he was in 'The Avengers' in the first place because he replaced Edward Norton. It is most likely that we won't be seeing another Hulk film until 2015.



As for the other three sequels for Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America, it will be a while before we see footage for these movies so we can only wait and see how they will turn out. With Iron Man 3, I haven't seen anything from director Shane Black but the fact that he has worked with Robert Downey Jr before is assuring. I'm a little more worried about 'Thor 2' mainly due to the many changes of directors but now that is no longer an issue, it seems like smooth sailing from here on out. Plus, having a director who has previously helmed 'Game of Thrones' is a pretty good replacement for Kenneth Branagh. As long as Taylor maintains the same level of class that Branagh brought to the first film, we should be good. Finally, with Captain America, Joss Whedon did a great job at handling how Steve Rogers adjusted to living in the modern world and we can only wait and see what happens to him next. Only time will tell...

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) review

In 2005, director Christopher Nolan revitalized the Batman franchise with 'Batman Begins' by avoiding the comedic routes taken in the Batman films of Joel Schumacher and not only returned the Caped Crusader to his darker roots, but also grounded him in reality as well. Three years later in 2008, Nolan raised the bar for superhero films with his follow-up, 'The Dark Knight', which continued to portray Batman in a more realistic way, as he faced a villain who tested him both physically and mentally, officially pushing him to his limits. Now, in 2012, Nolan makes his final mark on the Batman franchise with 'The Dark Knight Rises'. Really, there's no other way to put it... this may just be the most anticipated film of not only this year, but all time. With two great films under his belt already, especially after a film like 'Dark Knight', the pressure is on for Nolan to deliver on this final chapter. Can he break the 'third film' curse that has plagued many franchises (particularly comic-book movies) with the epic finale to his 'Dark Knight' trilogy?

At the end of 'The Dark Knight', Batman (Christian Bale), AKA millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne, took the blame for the murders committed by District Attorney Harvey 'Two-Face' Dent in order to preserve his good name so that Gotham would not lose hope in its darkest hour. Eight years have gone by, and Gotham City has recovered from the onslaught of the Joker. Because of this, Bruce has retired from crime-fighting knowing that the city no longer needs Batman. But Gotham is soon threatened again, this time by the terrorist Bane (Tom Hardy), who plans to burn Gotham to the ground. As Bruce also tries to deal with the appearance of the mysterious cat-burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), he must take up the mantle of Batman once more to save the city that has now branded him an enemy against the toughest enemy he has ever faced; one that may just be his downfall.

Now, the real challenge begins in order to not spoil anything from what is simply one of the greatest superhero films of all time, if not the best Batman movie at this point. Nolan yet again delivers with a truly epic film, and some of the paths that he takes in terms of story and character development are going to leave you genuinely surprised but satisfied at the same time. More importantly, however, Nolan avoids the curse of the 'threequel' by effectively ending the story arc of Bruce Wayne. What started when a young Bruce fell down that well in 'Batman Begins' and then went on the run from the police in 'The Dark Knight' comes to a close in this final chapter. By this point, Bruce has been through so much that he is just no match for this new villain. He's a broken shell of his former self, and it is only throughout the course of the film that he regains his confidence to take on this threat and save Gotham.

Each of Nolan's Batman films have revolved around a certain theme, like fear in 'Begins' or chaos in 'The Dark Knight'. Here, it's all about pain. Of course, Bruce is dealing with all that he has been through over the years, but other people are dealing with pain as well. The main reason why Gotham became as peaceful as it did was because of a lie. Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is conflicted knowing that he is honoring a man who really shouldn't be honored after the crimes he has committed, resulting in him losing his faith in justice. Meanwhile, while Bruce is considering becoming Batman again, we see Alfred (Michael Caine) unable to deal with him going back into the field. He knows how much Bruce's past experiences have hurt him, and that he doesn't stand a chance against Bane. The only real problem with the film is that Alfred is given little to do in this story and Caine isn't in the film that much, but the emotions that he gets across in the few scenes that he is in are extremely powerful.

This is probably Christian Bale's best performance as Batman. He was already fantastic in the role in the previous two films, but this one puts him at the same level of Michael Keaton in the Tim Burton helmed Batman films in the way he gets across the emotions that Bruce is going through. The rest of the returning cast, including Caine, Oldman, and Morgan Freeman are fantastic as well once again. As for the new cast members, we have a great performance by Tom Hardy as Bane which could very much be up there with Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. Comparing these two is rather unfair because the Joker and Bane are different characters. Bane is more calm than the manic psychopath that was the Joker and is clearly someone you do not want to mess with. Also, in regards to the issue regarding Bane's voice after the prologue was released last December, I had no issue understanding what he said in this movie, although there are just a few minor instances where you won't get what he said. I'm betting Christopher Nolan didn't even change a thing after the prologue was released.

Then you have Anne Hathaway, who is phenomenal as Selina Kyle AKA Catwoman. This is very much what Catwoman should be; cunning, sexy, and witty at the same time. She has great chemistry with Bale in this film and this is quite frankly the best portrayal of Catwoman on film. Also closing out the cast is Joseph Gordon-Levitt as cop John Blake, one of the few people left who still believes in justice and the Batman, and Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate, a member of Wayne Enterprises who helps Bruce come back to reality and is also a love interest of his along with Selina. Even with two love interests, the film actually does balance this out very well. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Christopher Nolan is a extraordinary actor-director, and all of his films (this film in particular) is proof of that.

There's no other way to say it... 'The Dark Knight Rises' fully lives up to its expectations as the final chapter in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. In fact, dare I say it even blows Dark Knight out of the water. Nolan avoids the dreaded 'third film' curse by completing the story arc of Batman, successfully getting across the emotions that the main characters go through, and doing some very risky moves that actually do work out in the end. The final shot of this movie in particular (which I am not going to spoil in any way) is just too tempting to leave unanswered. In fact, I feel that it's almost impossible for the next adaptation of Batman to beat what Christopher Nolan has done with his three films. Not only did he resurrect a once-dead franchise, but he also did what no one else has done in the superhero genre, and that was producing a trilogy where all three films are excellent. This film is one for the ages and does not disappoint whatsoever.

Rating: 5/5!

(On a more tragic note, I would like to dedicate this review to the poor souls who lost their lives in the shooting at that theater in Colorado at the midnight screening for this film and to anyone who was affected by this tragedy in anyway. Said Christopher Nolan himself, “The movie theater is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me.” Could not agree more.)

DC and the Justice League

As the release of 'The Dark Knight Rises' draws closer, DC Comics is already looking ahead into the future with one specific goal in mind. That goal is to successfully make a live-action film based on their famous superhero team, the Justice League. The pressure is especially big for DC now after Marvel's 'The Avengers' was both a huge critical and box office success. But can DC really make it happen the same way Marvel did? Aside from Batman and Superman, DC has been unable to successfully translate most of their comic book superheroes to film. Marvel, on the other hand, has brought Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and many more of their famous superheroes to life on the big screen. DC has a long way to go before they can make a true Justice League movie, and here's how they should do it.

The first hurdle on the road to success for DC is with Batman. 'The Dark Knight Rises' will be director Christopher Nolan's final entry in the Batman universe and while many DC fans are hopeful that Nolan will take charge of the DC universe after that, he currently has no plans to work on any more DC films aside from 'The Man of Steel' which he will be producing for a 2013 release. Another issue that DC will probably have to worry about is finding another Batman because like with Nolan, this will most likely be Christian Bale's last stint as the Caped Crusader. There may be a slight chance that Bale could return for a Justice League film, but odds are that will probably not happen. DC will have to not just reboot the Batman franchise, but also find a new lead as well.

DC's next big release after 'Dark Knight Rises' is of course 'Man of Steel', the latest film about the son of Krypton himself, Superman. DC should already be worried about this film seeing how its their second attempt at rebooting the Superman franchise after the disappointing performance of 2006's 'Superman Returns'. However, if DC really wants to make their Justice League movie work, 'Man of Steel' will also have to the equivalent of what Iron Man was to Marvel. It needs to be the film that gets the ball rolling to connect all of these different universes together the same way Iron Man got things started for Marvel in 2008. However, can 'Man of Steel' really do that? We have yet to see any footage from the film at this point, so who knows if 'Man of Steel' will even attempt to connect to other DC universes in the first place. The main reason I say this is because not only is Nolan uninterested in doing any more DC films, he also wants to keep the Batman and Superman universes separate. If that is the case, then this will be a problem for DC if they want a Justice League movie.

Another franchise DC will have to reboot is Green Lantern. Aside from Batman and Superman, Green Lantern has been the only other major superhero from DC to get a film adaptation in this current era of superhero films and unfortunately, DC's first attempt at bringing this universe to the big screen didn't really turn out so well. Not only was 2011's 'Green Lantern', which starred Ryan Reynolds in the lead role of Hal Jordan, a critical failure but it also failed to do much at the box office. With a final box-office gross of $222 million, the film barely made back its massive $200 million budget. So the obvious step for DC here would be to reboot the franchise. But how should DC do it? Do they recast Ryan Reynolds and find a new guy to play Hal Jordan or do they try one of the other famous characters who have been Green Lanterns over the years, like Kyle Rayner or John Stewart? I'm not entirely saying that you get rid of Reynolds though, because while the film wasn't exactly that great, he actually did a really good job in the role of Hal Jordan. Really, whatever happens with this franchise depends on what DC decides to do next.

Finally, and most importantly, DC needs to start working on bringing its other major superheroes to the big screen. If we look at the original seven members of the Justice League as it was in the comics, DC will have to do solo films for Wonder Woman, the Flash, Aquaman, and the Martian Manhunter. If DC does not decide to do a solo film for one of these characters, then have that character inserted as a side character into one of the other characters' movies so that they can fit into what would be a massive universe filled with all of DC's superheroes. Marvel already made this work when they had Black Widow debut in Iron Man 2 and Hawkeye debut in Thor, which led to their next appearances in 'The Avengers'. If that's the way DC will have to go, then so be it.

If it isn't any more clear, DC has quite a long way to go before they can make a Justice League movie. They'll most likely have to reboot both Batman and Green Lantern, have 'Man of Steel' actually work as a film, and will also have to get going in bringing their other famous superheroes to the big screen because that is something DC has yet to do successfully. Imagine, if you will, if DC decided to just make the Justice League movie now. Not only will they have to make all of these superheroes work together the same way Marvel did with 'The Avengers', but they would also need to introduce the characters that haven't made the big screen yet to audiences and that's not the best idea if you're making a movie this big. What Marvel did with their cinematic universe was nothing less than amazing in how they managed to not only make all of their superheroes work on the big screen, but also connect them so that they can all work together. DC, it's time for you to get going and also if you're looking for a director, odds are Joss Whedon won't be available.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) review

If I haven't made it clear before, I'm not a huge fan of Marvel's plan to reboot the Spider-Man franchise barely half a decade after Sam Raimi finished off his Spider-Man trilogy in 2007. Now when it comes to reboots, usually they are done if the previous film in the series didn't do well financially and/or critically. Of course, Spider-Man 3 wasn't all that great compared to the first two films, but it wasn't a financial failure. Really, the only reason why this happened in the first place was because Marvel wanted a fourth Spider-Man film to be made for a 2011 release, and the problem was that Raimi wouldn't have had as much creative integrity as he had with the other films if he had the film done by then. I believe that what Marvel should have done was give Raimi more time so that he could have made the film his way because there are some instances where the director's final product isn't exactly what he or she intended it to be and those cuts don't turn out as good. Spider-Man 4 could have very much been just as good as the first two films, or possibly better.

But enough of my ranting, because the real question is whether or not director Marc Webb's take on everybody's favorite web slinging superhero works as a movie. Well, in terms of reboots, 'The Amazing Spider-Man' does succeed in being its own story and Webb brings his unique vision to the story of Spider-Man with great success. True, it does have a lot in common with the first Spider-Man film but it does do enough to separate itself from the previous films that came before it without directly copying them. But the biggest surprise is how in some areas, this film improves on Raimi's films from the chemistry between the main characters to just how some of these characters are written compared to previous films. Needless to say, this film delivers on giving us a more realistic take on Spider-Man than ever before.

This story follows Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) while he is a high school student in New York. A social outcast amongst his classmates, Peter vies for the affections of his classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) and also seeks the answers to what happened the night his parents left him with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field), having never heard from them again. He learns that his father used to work at Oscorp Industries with fellow scientist Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) and while visiting there, he is bitten by a genetically-enhanced spider and gains spider-like powers from it. He uses these powers to become the crime fighting superhero Spider-Man, but he soon has to deal with a new problem that emerges when Connors tests a new regeneration formula on himself, becoming the monstrous Lizard.

Comparing Raimi's films to this new film is inevitable, but the key thing to note here is that Webb's version is much more focused on its characters compared to the other films. Andrew Garfield is great as Peter Parker, and if there's one thing that he does better than Tobey Maguire, it is making Spider-Man the wisecracking superhero that he is supposed to be. As for his love interest Gwen Stacy and her father George (Denis Leary), the Police Captain who hunts both the Lizard and Spider-Man as a suspected criminal, they are given much deserved bigger roles than in Spider-Man 3. Emma Stone is both radiant and charming as Gwen Stacy, and in terms of the romantic chemistry between Garfield and Stone, the only other time there has been a romantic chemistry this good was Captain America: The First Avenger. It's very natural and realistic, which is a big improvement over the romance between Maguire and Dunst in Raimi's films.

As for the rest of the cast, they also do a fantastic job. Rhys Ifans brings much depth to the role of Dr. Connors and while I hate to bash on Raimi's films again, this film does give The Lizard the proper role he deserves. While he was given a fairly decent role in Raimi's films, he was really just a side character in those films and he never even turned into the Lizard. This version of Dr. Connors also has a good motive for doing what he does. Having lost his arm, he is hopeful that he can find a proper regeneration serum that will not just help him, but many others that are in the same situation that he is in. Denis Leary brings the right attitude to the character of George Stacy and Martin Sheen and Sally Field provide a more authoritative but still very much caring take on the characters of Uncle Ben and Aunt May.

Really, the best way to describe this film compared to Raimi's films is that it is much more realistic in tone. That does seem odd to say considering the premise, but as good as Raimi's films are, they are rather cheesy. The dialogue of the first film is a prime example of this, and the less said about Spider-Man 3, the better. Even Spider-Man 2, the best of Raimi's trilogy, had its cheesy moments though they were less frequent than the other two films. Webb's film is more focused on the story and fleshing out the characters, and is much more serious in tone. We go even further into why Peter Parker became Spider-Man in the first place, having long looking for the answers as to why his parents left him. There was more to it than just the bite from that one spider. This has a lot in common to how Christopher Nolan rebooted the Batman franchise, after the last two films before 'Begins' were more similar in tone to the old Batman TV series of the 1960's than the first two Batman films by Tim Burton.

All in all, this take on Spider-Man does not only successfully separate itself from Raimi's films, but it surprisingly also manages to improve on some of the faults of the previous films by focusing more on the story and characters. I'm still not the biggest fan of this reboot being done so early, but I'm glad that it actually turned out really good. Compared to Raimi's films, 'The Amazing Spider-Man' is more realistic in tone similar to the Christopher Nolan Batman films and if I had to compare the two leads of both Raimi's films and this film, Garfield and Stone are just more compelling to watch. I'm very much interested in seeing how they will now move on with this franchise. While I don't want to give anything away, the end credits does give us a look at who will be the next main villain, and if you follow the movie closely, it does seem pretty clear as to who this character is. But we won't see the next film for two more years so we'll just have to wait and see what the filmmakers will decide to do next for Spider-Man and I have no problem with the way they're doing it now.

Rating: 4.5/5

Spider-Man 3 (2007) review

(Warning: There may be Spoilers)

I wish I could come out and say that Spider-Man 3 was another great film just like the two that came before it, effectively capping a great trilogy of films. Unfortunately, I cannot say that because Spider-Man 3 just isn't as good as its predecessors, falling victim to the dreaded 'third film' curse that has plagued many franchises from Star Wars to X-Men. The main issue with this film comes in its writing, as it juggles way too many plot lines, characters, and villains, making it very uneven compared to the first two films. Not only that, but some of these plot lines are either underdeveloped or just handled the wrong way. But is this truly that bad of a film? Quite frankly, it isn't because what does work in this film does work, from the cast to the action sequences. It's a shame they're let down by a mess of a script that hurts what should have been a great end to this great franchise.

A lot has changed for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) ever since he was bitten by that genetically-altered super-spider, becoming the webslinger superhero Spider-Man. He has become an icon in the city of New York and plans to propose to the love of his life, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst). However, things start to go haywire for Peter when an alien symbiote crashes down into New York and fuses itself to Peter, turning his suit black and also changing his personality. It also doesn't help that Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), the man who Peter learns had actually killed his Uncle Ben, has broken out of prison having recently become the shape-shifting criminal 'Sandman' and his old friend Harry (James Franco), who now knows who Peter really is, has taken up his father's mantle as the 'New Goblin' to exact his revenge on Peter for supposedly murdering his father.

There certainly are many problems with this film, but the biggest has to be that the film has too many villains to fit into just a single movie. As if Sandman and New Goblin weren't enough, then the film adds in Eddie Brock (played by Topher Grace), who later becomes fused with the symbiote becoming Venom. Obviously, Venom is a major character in the Spider-Man universe... and yet he's only on screen as Venom for like ten minutes. The truth is, Sam Raimi didn't even wanted to use Venom but was pressured into doing so. If anything, we should at least be glad that we did see Venom especially now that this version of Spider-Man is done.

But if Raimi did have the chance to do a fourth film, he should have just had Venom be the villain in that film and just go with Sandman and New Goblin as the villains because both Church and Franco were actually given very good development overall. With Sandman, we're able to sympathize with him because he's not entirely a bad guy. It's the same situation as with Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 because he's just a guy who “has just had back luck” as the movie puts it. With this film, Harry Osborn is given a proper character arc as a man who is burdened not only by his father's legacy but now has a vendetta against his best friend because he's the one that Harry believes murdered his father.

Venom isn't the only underdeveloped addition to the cast though. The film also doesn't do much with the Stacys, Police Captain George (James Cromwell) and his daughter Gwen (Bryce Dallas Howard). It would make sense to give them good material because in the comics, Gwen Stacy just so happens to be Peter's first girlfriend even before Mary Jane and while the film does play her as somewhat of a 'rival' to Mary Jane for Peter's affections, she isn't given much else to do once that plot line is over. As for her father, he's really just there to tell Peter the truth about who really killed his uncle. Gwen, her father, and Venom may be important characters in the comics but here, they're just side characters by the end of it all.

In terms of the many plot lines of this movie, a lot of them come from the previously mentioned 'side characters' but there is one that isn't handled very well and that just so happens to be the main conflict that Spider-Man faces in the movie as this symbiote starts to change more than just his suit. At first, it is handled very well as we see how Peter is becoming more separate from Mary Jane and also vengeful against Sandman for killing his uncle. But once Peter starts going emo, it all starts to go downhill. What should be a really serious conflict in Peter's life is instead played up for laughs and when he is being threatening to someone, it's not that believable and makes him look more like a jerk. Things do get serious again later on in the film, but it doesn't help after we had just seen Peter do a dance a la Jerry Lewis in 'The Nutty Professor' because the tone is incredibly inconsistent, conflicted between both goofy and serious moments.

Even with all of these problems, the film itself isn't that bad of a film. Like before, the cast does still do a good job. However, this time Maguire comes off a bit more goofier than before and that whole emo turn doesn't help much either. Still, when he has to be serious, he still does a good job as Peter Parker. The same goes for the rest of the returning cast and the new members of the cast as well, even with the little material that some of them are given. The effects are still great and the action sequences in this film particularly are some of the best in any recent comic book movie. If this script wasn't as messy as it was, then this would've been one heck of a final film but that just isn't the case here. However, the film does end on somewhat of a high note.

Really when you get down to it, Spider-Man 3 isn't really as bad as most people have put it. However, there still are problems mainly with the script. Too many villains, some characters and plot lines that either go nowhere or aren't handled very well, etc. But this isn't a total mess of a film. The acting is still very good and it is still a very entertaining film from beginning to end. It's a shame that what started out with a great first film and was then followed by an even better sequel ends with a less than stellar 'threequel'. But now Marvel has moved on with a new reboot, even though it is only five years after this film. How will director Marc Webb and new leads Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone do in 'The Amazing Spider-Man'? Well, we're just going to have to stay tuned and find out when the film comes out on July 3^rd.

Rating: 3/5

Spider-Man 2 (2004) review

It is extremely rare when a sequel is not only as good as its predecessor, but actually better. When it comes to these kinds of movies, most people would probably say 'Terminator 2', 'Aliens', or 'The Godfather Part II', and in terms of comic book movies, the obvious answer would be Spider-Man 2. While its predecessor can be regarded as one of the landmark movies of the superhero genre, Spider-Man 2 sets the standard for how great a comic book movie can really be. Pretty much every problem that the first movie had is fixed here, and the story delves deeper into the conflicts that the main character faces both physically and emotionally. Add in a great cast and a even greater villain and you have one of the best superhero movies of all time.

Two years after the events of the first film, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has struggled to balance life as both himself and as the webslinger crime-fighter Spider-Man. Unable to handle both identities, he has distanced himself from everyone he cares about. The love of his life, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), is about to marry an astronaut, and his friend Harry (James Franco) holds a personal vendetta against Spider-Man who he believes murdered his father. As Peter's life starts to become more stressful, his powers start to become unreliable, and he considers a life away from being Spider-Man. Meanwhile, renowned scientist Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), after a failed experiment which results in the death of his wife, turns to a life of crime, endangering the whole world in the process.

Where Spider-Man succeeding in telling an origin story, Spider-Man 2 succeeds in diving even deeper into the character of Peter Parker and the many problems he has dealing with his two identities as he tries to balance everything in his life. He is losing the people he cares for because of his responsibilities to both them and to New York as Spider-Man and because he can't handle both lives at the same time, he even gives up being Spider-Man at one point to live his own life. The writers not only did an amazing job with Spider-Man but also with the film's villain, Doc Ock. Instead of making him a guy who just became evil for the fun of it, the writers made him a character we can sympathize with, having turned evil because of the terrible things that happened to him.

Any problem that the first film had (or in this case, now has) is non-existent here. The effects are very much improved on and the dialogue isn't as cheesy as it was before. This time, Raimi perfectly blends humor with drama compared to the first film where looking at it now, some of it is really hard to take seriously because of the dialogue. Maguire yet again does a fantastic job as Peter Parker and the returning cast of Dunst, Franco, and Rosemary Harris do great as well. Franco is also given a much more substantial role this time as Harry, now burdened by the legacy his father left for him and also angry at Spider-Man for taking his father away from him, even though he didn't. Alfred Molina is also brilliant as Octavius, giving much depth to the role like any great villain.

The first Spider-Man movie may still be a great movie, but Spider-Man 2 is nothing less than brilliant. Every problem that the first film had is fixed and the writers did an amazing job at delving into the many conflicts of Peter Parker. The character of Dr. Octavius is also one of the best villains ever in a comic book movie, which is also thanks in part to the writing. Like with any good sequel, the stakes are raised even higher than they were before and the film does not disappoint in any way. Very rarely has a comic book movie gone this far in developing its characters and Spider-Man 2 stands strong as one of the best comic book movies ever made. Heck, I'd go as far and say one of the best movies ever.

Rating: 5/5!

Next up: Spider-Man 3, which obviously is a different story compared to the first two films

Spider-Man (2002) review

As we are on the heels of the release of 'The Amazing Spider-Man', it's rather odd how Columbia and Marvel are intent on going along with this new reboot just half a decade after the final film in director Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy was released in 2007. It was only a decade ago in 2002 when Raimi's first Spider-Man film hit theaters. It is a film that is now recognized along with the original X-Men film and Blade as one of the landmark films of the superhero genre. Admittedly, looking back on it now in 2012, the film is a bit dated and the dialogue is really cheesy which makes it hard to take this film seriously. But there's no denying that it is still a really good superhero movie with a superb lead, an entertainingly over-the-top villain, and a overall solid origin story.

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) was just an average high-school student until one day, while on a field trip, he is bitten by a radioactive 'super-spider' and as a result, gains spider-like abilities because of the bite. Taking advice from his late Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) that 'with great power comes great responsibility', Peter uses his new found powers to fight crime as 'Spider-Man'. As he tries to adapt to these new found powers and his feelings towards his lifetime crush Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), Peter must also deal with the rising threat of the Green Goblin, who is secretly Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe), the father of Peter's friend Harry (James Franco), who tests his company's new performance-enhancing chemical on himself with dangerous side effects.

Unlike other superhero films like 'X-Men' or 'Thor', Spider-Man is not an example of a film that is only a set-up for sequels. Screenwriter David Koepp and Raimi do a fine job handling the origins of the character without pulling anything that would be too stupid. While I never read any of the Spider-Man comics before seeing the film, it seems like they were very faithful to the comics which is always a good thing when it comes to these kinds of movies. The story itself doesn't really pull any punches, but still works very well overall. However, Koepp's screenplay isn't perfect, which is where the outdated nature of the movie starts to kick in. The majority of the dialogue is incredibly cheesy and really can't be taken seriously sometimes. Really, that's the biggest problem with this film today is that not a lot of it can be taken very seriously. Not only is the dialogue cheesy, but some of the effects are kind of dated now and Green Goblin's costume is also rather cheesy-looking too.

In terms of casting, Tobey Maguire is perfectly cast as Peter Parker, displaying the right emotions for the character at this point (emphasis on 'this point'), although it would've been better if he was cracking more jokes, which is something that Spider-Man is known for as a character. As the Green Goblin, Willem Dafoe goes quite over-the-top many times and his costume and the cheesy dialogue don't help much either. Even so, it is very entertaining nonetheless because like with Maguire, he was perfectly cast in the role. Kirsten Dunst does a pretty good job as Mary Jane, and she does have good chemistry with Maguire. While he isn't given much to do at this point in the story, James Franco does a fine job as Harry Osborn. The rest of the supporting cast do a fine job as well, from the strong performances by Robertson and Rosemary Harris as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, respectively, to JK Simmons' hilarious and scene-stealing performance as Jonah Jameson, the publisher of the Daily Bugle who believes that Spider-Man is a criminal.

Overall, the first Spider-Man film is one that unfortunately hasn't aged very well compared to some of the more recent comic book films. The reason for this is because looking at it now, the dialogue is very cheesy and because of other random problems, it's a hard film to take seriously, especially when looking at what would come next for the webslinger. Even so, this is still a really good comic book film backed up by the solid, though traditional, story and the great cast led by Maguire as Spider-Man and Dafoe as the Green Goblin. Where this film ranks amongst anybody in terms of the greatest comic book movies of all time is debatable, but there is no denying the impact that this film had in terms to comic book movies in general.

Rating: 4/5

NEXT UP: Spider-Man 2