The Hunger Games (2012) review

(Note: The following is a newly written review, updated from an earlier review that I did on this film back in March 2012 on Rotten Tomatoes. I would’ve just reposted that original review here, but looking back I realized that it wasn’t really that good and, also, a little biased. It mostly just consisted of me making numerous comparisons to another certain young adult film franchise which was also adapted from a popular book series. Because of this, I decided to write a new review just in time for ‘Catching Fire’. Enjoy!)

(Also, as a bit of a warning, there are some Spoilers regarding the ending.)

We all know how J.K. Rowling’s ‘Harry Potter’ series, which was already a major success in book form, became even more successful once the books were adapted to film beginning in 2001. In the wake of Potter, many studios tried to cash in on the success of the franchise by adapting other popular book franchises. However, for the longest time, no one really had any luck at creating ‘the next Harry Potter’, despite the fact that some of these movies had really good source material to work with, like ‘Eragon’ and ‘Stormbreaker’. The first book-to-film adaptation that managed to become as big as ‘Potter’ was ‘The Twilight Saga’ but, in the opinion of this reviewer, this was mainly because of the popularity of the source material and not because of its quality; in other words, the movies were terrible. Now, both ‘Harry Potter’ and ‘Twilight’ have come to an end, meaning that it’s time for a new franchise to step up and become the next ‘Harry Potter’ and that franchise is ‘The Hunger Games’, based off of the best-selling book series by author Suzanne Collins. Sure, in retrospect, the first adaptation of this franchise isn’t perfect, namely due to some decisions that were made in the transition to film, but overall this first film does a good job at setting up its universe and, more importantly, its lead heroine.

In the future, the nation of Panem exists in a post-apocalyptic North America consisting of the main city of The Capitol and its 12 neighboring districts. After the 12 Districts (previously 13) started a rebellion, The Capitol, after defeating the rebels and apparently destroying the 13^th District, initiated a new annual event called ‘The Hunger Games’, a televised event where 24 ‘Tributes’ (one male and female from each district) fight to the death until only one remains as the winner. During the year of the 74^th Hunger Games, District 12 resident Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers to be the female Tribute for the District after her sister Prim (Willow Shields) is initially chosen. Along with fellow District tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), Katniss is brought to the Capitol where she and Peeta are put to the test as they must compete with Tributes who have had more experience than them and have better ‘odds’ at winning.

Like most book franchises, ‘The Hunger Games’ serves as the film in its series whose job is to set up the universe and its characters, and as far as that is concerned, director Gary Ross does a very good job at establishing the unique world of Panem and bringing it to the big screen. The key themes of the novel, like the idea of oppression and critiques of both government and the media, are executed well on film. In terms of staying faithful to the source material, the film may not maintain the first-person narrative from the book, as told by Katniss, but I do like that it gives more attention to those behind the scenes, namely President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and Head Gamemaker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley).  But as for the action once the actual Hunger Games get started, it leads to probably the biggest problems that some have with the film; a lot of shaky camerawork and fast editing. There’s no denying it; it is pretty noticeable, but considering that this film probably wouldn’t have been able to maintain a PG-13 rating considering how violent things get during the Games, it’s sort of understandable as to why they went this route.

But really the best part about this whole film is its main character, Katniss Everdeen. Compared to a certain female lead in another young adult franchise, Katniss can certainly hold her own and is not dependent on a man. This film belongs to Jennifer Lawrence, who does an outstanding job at conveying Katniss’s emotions. She’s backed up by a terrific supporting cast that includes Woody Harrelson as Katniss and Peeta’s mentor Haymitch, Stanley Tucci as Hunger Games commentator Caesar Flickerman, and Lenny Kravitz as Katniss’s stylist and ally Cinna. Sure, this movie does have one of those ‘love triangles’ that you see a lot of in these kinds of movies and the two male leads may not be as ‘developed’ as Katniss, but both Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth, who plays Katniss’ friend Gale (who, for the record, is only on screen for like 10 minutes), do good enough jobs with what they have to work with. It may seem like Lawrence and Hutcherson don’t really have good chemistry but that’s sort of how it played out in the book; Katniss played up the romance in order to gain sympathy from the audience, ultimately resulting in her actually beginning to have feelings for Peeta. However, I do have to add that, as faithful as they were to the book, the filmmakers left out a key scene in the end where Peeta learns about this, which would have helped developed their relationship in future movies. Hopefully ‘Catching Fire’ doesn’t forget this crucial plot-point.

In the end, ‘The Hunger Games’ may not exactly be perfect, mainly due to some shaky camerawork and fast editing during the actual Hunger Games. But as a whole, this film does benefit from some very good writing and, for the most part, very well-developed characters. The one in particular who stands out here is Jennifer Lawrence. Not only is the character of Katniss a well-developed female heroine, but Lawrence carries the movie on her back with the help of a talented supporting cast. Overall, Gary Ross did a very good job at establishing the universe and the characters, but I am curious to see what Francis Lawrence brings to the series with ‘Catching Fire’. Considering that he will be returning for both parts of ‘Mockingjay’, it seems like Lionsgate was impressed by his work on the first sequel. ‘Catching Fire’ is currently getting highly positive reviews, but we’ll just have to wait and see if it manages to be superior to its predecessor.

Rating: 4.5/5

 

12 Years a Slave (2013) review

Since 2011, around 5 to 10 films earn Best Picture nominations at the Oscars. It’s common to expect some major upsets to happen during Oscar night, but it seems like the race for this top honor usually comes down to two films almost every year. Some of the most recent examples of this trend include ‘Argo’ and ‘Life of Pi’ last year, ‘Hugo’ and ‘The Artist’ in 2011, and ‘The Hurt Locker’ and ‘Avatar’ in 2009. This year is no different. Having been both a critical and commercial success since being released back in early October, Alfonso Cuaron’s ‘Gravity’ has been receiving major attention during ‘Oscar season’. However, the film that everyone says WILL be the film that wins Best Picture this year is Steve McQueen’s ’12 Years a Slave’. The tale of a free man forced into slavery can be brutal at times, but you can’t deny its status as one of the best films of the year. It achieves this status by not letting up and showing the full detail of the horrors of slavery and is backed up by an outstanding ensemble cast.

’12 Years a Slave’, based on the autobiography of the same name from 1853, is the true story of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) who, in 1841, lived as a free man in Saratoga, New York with his family, making a living as a violinist. One day, Solomon is approached by two men named Brown and Hamilton (Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam) who offer him a job in their ‘traveling’ circus. Solomon accepts the offer but after a night in Washington D.C., Solomon suddenly finds himself sold into slavery and unable to tell anyone that he is a free man. With a new name, Platt, and status as a ‘Georgia runaway’, Solomon now has to endure his new life as the film follows him on his 12-year journey as the property of various owners, including the kindly preacher William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) and the cruel and vicious Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender).

Most slavery movies might end up avoiding showing some of the severe extremes that slaves went through. This film does not do that; it clearly emphasizes how horrible it was for those who were in slavery at the time. More importantly, it shows that it could corrupt even the nicest person. As you might have guessed, there were people like Edwin Epps who were down-right sadistic and cruel but then you have someone like Solomon’s first owner, William Ford. This preacher is actually nice to his slaves, and yet he’s still a slave owner. Even someone as nice as Ford was involved in this horrible act. That’s the reason why this film works so well; it doesn’t skimp on anything. Because of this, the film is incredibly hard to watch, mainly in part to how McQueen shoots it. He lets a lot of shots run for a while; one scene in particular involving a hanging is very effective and intense. But that was exactly how life was like for slaves back then.

This film also has a terrific ensemble cast, and two actors in particular are surefire contenders for acting awards at the Oscars. In the lead role, Chiwetel Ejiofor gives a very quiet and reserved performance as Solomon Northup. He does a fantastic job at conveying the character’s emotions simply through his facial expressions, which makes his performance all the more powerful. That is because his character realizes that if he even tried to say anything, he would be beaten or worse, killed. Equally outstanding in this film is Michael Fassbender as Edwin Epps. This may be an utterly despicable, heartless, and repugnant human being (his wife Mary (Sarah Paulson) is equally sadistic), but Fassbender just gets into the role and manages to get a lot out of it. These two headline an outstanding cast, most of whom appear in minor roles, including Brad Pitt as a friendly carpenter and Paul Giamatti as a slave trader. But there are some who really stand out in more substantial roles, like Benedict Cumberbatch and newcomer Lupita Nyong’o as Patsey, a fellow slave who befriends Solomon and is lusted after by Epps.

Everyone is saying that this film will win Best Picture at the Oscars, and if it does, I won’t be surprised because this film is easily one of the best of 2013. It’s extremely hard to watch at times, but its unrelenting nature truly reflects what really happened back then. A terrific ensemble cast is led by two heavy contenders for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor in Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender, respectively. This is a really big deal in the case of the latter because it would be a travesty if this turns out like last year’s Oscars, where Leonardo DiCaprio got snubbed for his outstanding work in ‘Django Unchained’. That better not be the case this year with Fassbender, who has been snubbed by the Academy before. My friend Matt gave this film a proper nickname, ‘White Guilt: The Movie’. I guarantee you’ll be feeling that while watching this movie, along with a few other emotions.

Rating: 5/5!

Thor: The Dark World (2013) review

One could say that Marvel took a very huge risk in developing a Cinematic Universe, something that we have really never seen before in the world of film. But in the end, they did succeed at their goal, creating a massive universe for their superheroes to live in. How did they do it? They made a whole bunch of solo films focusing on the characters that would later come together to form ‘The Avengers’. However, of these heroes, one’s first solo outing was perhaps the biggest risk Marvel had faced up to that point. The idea of a ‘Thor’ movie was tricky. Not only did Marvel had to work around the fact that the Asgardian God of Thunder did not come from Earth but from the mystical realm of Asgard, but they also had to worry about making it work without it being too campy. Thankfully, 2011’s ‘Thor’ was far better than expected thanks to the Shakespearian influence from director Kenneth Branagh and the charisma of star Chris Hemsworth in the title role. Sure, it had some flaws, namely the fact that the film really didn’t explore the universe of the Nine Realms that much, but nevertheless it was an extremely entertaining film.

Thor and his brother Loki would return again for ‘The Avengers’, with the latter establishing himself as one of the premier villains of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a huge improvement from his rather underdeveloped role in ‘Thor’. In fact, if Tom Hiddleston’s surprise appearance at this year’s Comic-Con proves anything, it is that Loki has become perhaps the most popular character in the MCU. Now, everyone’s favorite gods return for the next MCU film, ‘Thor: The Dark World’. This time, Branagh is not directing; instead, it is Alan Taylor. He has been mostly known for his work on television, but when one of those shows is ‘Game of Thrones’, it’s clear that this man was qualified for the job. Overall, Taylor manages to improve on Branagh’s film in regards to the action, visuals, and for doing a better job at immersing us in this universe. It’s still not entirely perfect, mostly because of some pretty weak villains, but as a whole, ‘Thor: The Dark World’ is another great entry in the MCU, thanks in part due to the performances from its two leads.

After helping the Avengers save Earth from an alien invasion led by his brother Loki (Hiddleston), Thor (Hemsworth) returns home to Asgard where he continues to bring peace to the Nine Realms while Loki is imprisoned in the Asgardian dungeons. However, things start to change when, back on Earth, Thor’s love interest and astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) becomes infected by a substance known as Aether. This draws the attention of the race known as the Dark Elves, led by Malekith the Accursed (Christopher Eccleston), who attempted to use the Aether to take over the world many eons ago before he was stopped by Thor’s grandfather Bor. Sensing that she is in danger, Thor brings her to Asgard in order to find a way to get the Aether out of her. However, when the Dark Elves begin to attack, Thor is forced to team up with Loki in order to stop this new threat.

In a lot of ways, ‘The Dark World’ improves on some of its predecessor’s biggest problems. Most of ‘Thor’ was spent on Earth instead of on Asgard. Now, that’s necessarily a bad thing because the stuff on Earth was well-handled in terms of helping Thor grow as a character, but we never really got a chance to immerse ourselves in the universe that is the Nine Realms, or Thor and Loki’s home world of Asgard for that matter. That’s not a problem here. More time is spent off-planet and we get a better sense of the universe. Also, from a visual perspective, it does actually look nicer than it did in ‘Thor’. Taylor also works better in regard to action scenes while still maintaining the light-hearted atmosphere and humor that worked so well in Branagh’s film.

However, this film suffers from one major problem. The villains in this film are really weak. In fact, dare I say it they’re the weakest villains to date in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and considering what we’ve seen from these movies, that is saying a lot. The great Christopher Eccleston is wasted in the role of Malekith, who spends most of his time brooding and speaking in Elvish. There could have been some really good character development in terms of the relationship between him and Thor, seeing how he was thwarted by the latter’s grandfather but sadly we don’t get that. His second in command Algrim (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) is a more threatening villain. Even then, and I’m not spoiling anything, they don’t do much with him either, even when he transforms into a stronger character known as Kurse in the comics.

But on the bright side, the film is well-acted. As Thor, Hemsworth is once again excellent as he continues to maintain Thor’s charming and likable personality. We also see that Thor has grown as a character since the last film (‘Thor’ that is, not ‘The Avengers’) because he isn’t as brash as he was in the first film. Equally great here is Tom Hiddleston as Loki. Hiddleston just owns the role and even steals the spotlight from Hemsworth at times. In fact, the best scenes in the entire movie are when the two of them are on screen together. Natalie Portman unfortunately gets reduced to a ‘damsel in distress’ role for this film, but her chemistry with Hemsworth improved quite a bit. As for the rest of the cast, some do get more substantial roles than what they had in the previous film (like Rene Russo as Thor and Loki’s mother Frigga and Idris Elba as Heimdall) but some are still stuck in minor parts, like Sif and the Warriors Three. There could’ve been some good romantic tension between Jane and Sif for Thor’s affections, but it kind of seems like that stuff ended up on the cutting room floor.

I can’t really call ‘Thor: The Dark World’ the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Sure, Alan Taylor manages to improve on some of the flaws of the previous film but this film really suffers from having perhaps the weakest villains in the MCU, underusing Christopher Eccleston in a role that could have had so much more to it. Thankfully, the film is still very entertaining, mainly thanks to the charismatic performances from Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston as Thor and Loki, respectively. It seems likely that another ‘Thor’ film will happen, probably after ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’. Hopefully for the next one the villains are far better. Considering how this film ends (again, not giving anything away), how about they make Loki the main villain again? Perhaps we can get a Loki spin-off as well?

Rating: 4/5

(P.S. Don’t forget to stay through the credits for there are two post-credits scenes in this one, the first giving us a glimpse as to what’s down the road in the MCU (‘Avengers 3’, I’m guessing considering what route Joss Whedon is apparently taking with ‘Age of Ultron’.))

Olympus Has Fallen vs. White House Down

Earlier this year, I did a post where I talked about the ‘copycat films’ trend that has been happening in Hollywood over the last few years, where two films that have almost exactly the same premise come out the same year. At the end of that post, I briefly talked about the two ‘copycat films’ that were released this year, which were both centered around invasions at the White House: Antoine Fuqua’s ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ and Roland Emmerich’s ‘White House Down’.  Not only do both films revolve around a takeover of the White House by terrorists, but they also feature a John McClane like character who saves the day a la ‘Die Hard’. Since that post was published, both of these films have hit theaters and I have seen both of them, so now it’s time to discuss these two films and possibly decide which one is the better film.

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN

‘Olympus Has Fallen’ sort of took me for surprise. When comparing these two films, ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ is far more intense, not just because of the fact that this movie was rated R compared to White House Down’s more audience-friendly PG-13 rating; a serious tone is maintained throughout the entire course of the film. In a way, it works and in some ways it doesn’t. With a premise like this, it seems like everyone involved in this film was taking it a little too seriously because let’s face it; this is sort of a silly premise. While that is sort of a flaw, the main character Mike Banning surprisingly has a good amount of depth to him. He was once a member of the President’s Secret Service, but left the job after an incident that resulted in the death of the First Lady. For the record, both of these films’ leads are in a similar situation; they’re trying to turn their lives around and they ultimately do… by saving the President in the process. In the case of this movie, it’s less cliché than in ‘White House Down’ (more on that in a bit). On that note, the best thing about this whole movie is Gerald Butler’s performance in the lead role. To put it simply, these kinds of movies are the ones where he’s at his best. The rest of the cast does a fine job as well and in the end, while ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ takes itself a bit too seriously, it’s still pretty entertaining.

Rating: 3.5/5

WHITE HOUSE DOWN

Right off the bat, the key difference between these two movies is their overall tone. ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ was more serious while ‘White House Down’ doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s more lighthearted and in this one, the President even gets involved in the action. However, this film ends up being even more cliché than ‘Olympus’. This film doesn’t pull many surprises. One cliché in particular that I’m getting rather sick of is the ‘deadbeat dad’ plotline… mainly because it’s been in most of director Roland Emmerich’s movies (‘2012’, ‘Independence Day’, ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, etc…). On the bright side, like with ‘Olympus’, this film benefits from the performances from its leads; in this case, Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx. The two work off each other very well, which helps to ease the tension during some of this film’s more intense moments. All in all, they help make this movie entertaining despite its flaws; most of which stem from the writing.

Rating: 3.5/5

How these two films fared:

As far as critical reception was concerned, both of these films received rather mixed reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, ‘White House Down’ has the better ratings (50%), but just by 2% over ‘Olympus Has Fallen’. The former also earned more at the box office (over $200 million), which may have been because of the film’s summer release date (the latter was released in March). However, with a budget of $150 million, it’s considered to be a bit of a flop. Meanwhile, ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ grossed more than twice its budget (which was a more modest $70 million) and a sequel is currently in development that will take place in London.

Overall winner:

This is a tough one because, as shown by my ratings for these two films, I’m not really sure if one of these films is better than the other. Neither is particularly original, so it all depends on the way each film is executed. From a writing standpoint, ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ has a better developed lead character while ‘White House Down’ is full of clichés. However, I’d say ‘White House Down’ was more entertaining. ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ was surprisingly very intense, but it felt like it was taking itself way too seriously. ‘White House Down’ is a more straight-forward popcorn flick. So in the end, I’ll give the slight edge to ‘White House Down’ but for the record, I do think both of these films are pretty entertaining. It just depends on what you’re looking for; a super-intense action thriller, or a more light-hearted one.

Marvel Cinematic Universe Retrospective

The next film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, ‘Thor: The Dark World’, is set to hit theaters this upcoming weekend. So, instead of just doing a single review on its predecessor, I decided to do a look back at the entire Cinematic Universe as a whole from the first Iron Man film back in 2008 to ‘Iron Man 3’, which was released back in May. Since I started this blog back in May of 2012, I’ve actually only covered two of these films; The Avengers (which was the very first review that I posted on this site) and Iron Man 3, for which I did both a regular review and a Spoiler Post regarding the film’s controversial twist. So now it’s time for me to talk about the other five films that were released before ‘Avengers’; Marvel’s ‘Phase One’. Since I’ve talked about Marvel’s success in creating this Cinematic Universe multiple times already, I’ll leave it at that because otherwise you’ll know what I would say next. So, let’s take a look back at the past seven films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

IRON MAN (2008)

I can easily sum up the reason why this movie is so good in three simple words; those three words are ‘Robert Downey Jr.’. This is easily one of the best casting decisions in the history of superhero films, if not the best. If it wasn’t for him, I have a feeling that this movie wouldn’t have turned out as good as it did. Don’t get me wrong; this is still a really good movie, but it is Downey’s performance as Tony Stark, billionaire turned superhero, which really elevates the material. Admittedly, there’s really not much I can say about this film other than it is a top-notch superhero film and it did its job at establishing what was to come in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It hit all of the right notes in terms of story and character development and as such, it certainly stands as one of the best superhero films of the last few years.

Rating: 5/5!

THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008)

Marvel first brought the character of the Hulk to the big screen in 2003 with Ang Lee’s ‘Hulk’. However, the film was sort of a flop at the box office so Marvel decided to reboot the franchise, which would now be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This Hulk film, directed by Louis Leterrier, is much better than its predecessor for one key reason. Lee’s film was more focused on the drama than the action. I’m not necessarily saying that’s a bad thing because I do think that the dramatic material was at least well-written, but it made the film rather boring at times. This one takes a more ‘action-packed’ route and while that might mean that the screenplay is a little lacking at times, it is still a very entertaining film. Edward Norton and Tim Roth both do excellent jobs as Bruce Banner and Emil Blonsky (the latter becoming ‘The Abomination’ by the end of the film), respectively. While Norton was eventually overshadowed by his successor, Mark Ruffalo, in ‘Avengers’ in terms of their respective performances, he still does a great job at displaying the character’s struggles and emotions. As for Liv Tyler and William Hurt as Betty and General Ross, they do okay jobs but I think that Jennifer Connelly and Sam Elliott were better in the roles in Lee’s ‘Hulk’. Still, this ‘Incredible Hulk’, while not perfect, is at least better than the previous ‘Hulk’ film. I do look forward to seeing another Hulk film with Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner. However, that film unfortunately might not happen for a while, at least until after ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’.

Rating: 4/5

IRON MAN 2 (2010)

It’s common knowledge that sequels are never as good as the original. Iron Man 2… is one of those movies. Now, while I do rank this film at the bottom when it comes to ranking all of the Cinematic Universe films, I don’t think it’s a bad movie; far from it in fact. It’s very entertaining as most superhero films are and Robert Downey Jr. is still fantastic as Tony Stark. So what’s the main problem, then? Well, it seems like the filmmakers went a little too far in terms of ‘raising the bar’, as is usual with sequels. There are just too many characters in this movie, which means that some get less development than others, namely the main villain Whiplash. Mickey Rourke is very good in the role, but at one point he is reduced to being the pawn of another villain, Justin Hammer. On the bright side, Sam Rockwell steals the show whenever he’s on screen but unfortunately that means that Whiplash gets thrown to the sidelines. One thing that could have helped was if S.H.I.E.L.D. wasn’t really overused in this film, which I feel they are. I’m fine with the inclusion of Black Widow but I feel that Nick Fury should have just stayed as a brief cameo. There are some other minor gripes that I have, one of them being that Tony is a bit too arrogant in this film. Now, I can see where they were going, because there’s this other plotline that Tony’s dying from palladium poisoning because of the substance’s use in his arc reactor, but I’m not sure that plotline went far. Still, despite its flaws, ‘Iron Man 2’ is still an entertaining superhero film but it could have been much better.

Rating: 3.5/5

THOR (2011)

This film was easily the biggest risk that Marvel was taking during ‘Phase One’ because this could have ended up being a very campy film, which would not have been good for Marvel if Thor was to be one of the Avengers. But in the end, this film turned out to be much better than expected, mainly because of two reasons. One is director Kenneth Branagh, whose experience with Shakespeare translates to this film. The themes of honor and family are constantly present in the film and are very well-handled. The other is the performance from Chris Hemsworth in the titular role, who flawlessly displays both charm and arrogance as Thor. The rest of the cast is great as well, although some could have been given a little more to do, including Natalie Portman as Thor’s love interest Jane Foster and Tom Hiddleston as Loki, though for the record in the case of the latter that’s just in this film. Obviously, that changes with ‘Avengers’. Another positive about the film is the surprising amount of humor in the screenplay and it works very well. My only major complaint with the film is that if feels like it is mostly setting up what’s to come later. For a film that takes place in a universe like the Nine Realms, we only see three of them; Asgard, Jotunheim, and Earth… and we spent more time on Earth than in the other two worlds. The one thing that I want to see in the next film is that they explore this universe more. Thankfully, the trailers seem to indicate like that will be the case. But as a whole, the first ‘Thor’ movie is another great entry in the Cinematic Universe.

Rating: 4/5

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011)

Out of all of these films, ‘Captain America’ probably seems the closest to an old-school summer blockbuster, being set in the 40’s during WWII for the majority of the film while still having some of the more modern storytelling aspects from the other Cinematic Universe films. This film manages to find the right balance of the old and the new; director Joe Johnston is at his best whenever he does period films, like ‘Rocketeer’ or ‘October Sky’ and this film is no exception. Like with the other Marvel films, the filmmakers did a great job at casting the lead hero, in this case Chris Evans as Captain America/Steve Rogers. As Rogers, Evans is extremely likable and charismatic, and his ‘never give up’ attitude is very admirable. Even after he becomes Captain America, he maintains that likable persona throughout the film. This film has perhaps the best ensemble cast (aside from ‘Avengers’ of course) of Phase One. How can you go wrong with a cast that includes Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, and Stanley Tucci? This film also one of the best, shall we say, ‘superhero couples’ in Cap and Peggy Carter (played by Hayley Atwell). Their chemistry feels genuine and this helps make the ending scene of the film quite emotional. All in all, while I can’t say ‘The First Avenger’ is the best of the Phase One films, it is my personal favorite.

Rating: 5/5!

THE AVENGERS (2012)

For a more ‘detailed’ review of the film, here are links to both my original review and the post where I listed this film as the best film of 2012 (which I still stand by, for the record):

Review: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2012/05/avengers-2012-review.html

Top 10 post: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-top-3-films-of-2012.html

Do I really need to talk about this one? You probably know what I’m going to say, seeing how I named this my number one favorite film of 2012. So, I‘ll keep it short. ‘The Avengers’ is one of the finest superhero films to date. You really have to hand it to Marvel on this one. They took their time, developed their universe and the characters, picked the right cast to play these heroes, and finally brought them all together under the direction of Joss Whedon for one of the most epic films to date. Whedon, a director who does a great job at working with a large cast, gives equal time and development to each of the main heroes. No single hero is more important than the others and some get better development that what they had in previous movies, namely Black Widow and Hawkeye. Tom Hiddleston also establishes himself as a premier super villain in the role of Loki. Admittedly, it takes a while for the film to get going but once it finally does, it’s incredible. The screenplay is full of witty dialogue, leading to a lot of funny moments. My personal favorite scene; when Hulk and Thor crash a Leviathan down into Grand Central. Once they get up, Hulk suddenly punches Thor off-screen. It’s so unexpected and yet so funny at the same time. The bottom line is that if you haven’t seen this film yet, I strongly urge you to do so because it is one of the best of the superhero genre.

Rating: 5/5!

IRON MAN 3 (2013)

Here are the links to the two ‘Iron Man 3’ posts I did back in May:

Original Review: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/iron-man-3-2013-review.html

Spoiler Post: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/iron-man-3-spoiler-talk.html

Like many 2013 summer blockbusters (e.g. Star Trek Into Darkness, Man of Steel), ‘Iron Man 3’, despite receiving solid reviews from critics and becoming the second Marvel film in a row to gross over 1 billion at the box office, has received a rather mixed reception from audiences. From what I’ve seen, some of this negativity is a little unfair, namely from those who hated it just because of the controversial twist surrounding the film’s ‘main villain’. Yes, it is a big change from the comics, but it actually did work from a story perspective. As for another ‘complaint’ about where S.H.I.E.L.D. and the other Avengers were during the events of this movie, I can answer that… they had their own s*** to deal with. Remember that the biggest reason why ‘The Avengers’ worked so well is because Marvel took their time and developed their universe and the characters in it by doing solo superhero films. Not every Marvel film can be ‘The Avengers’ and directed by Joss Whedon; solo superhero films are still effective. Besides, aren’t the ‘Iron Man’ films the highest grossing solo films in the Cinematic Universe?

Okay, rant over, back to ‘Iron Man 3’. The reason why the film works so well is because it has a solid character-driven story, as Tony tries to deal with the anxiety from his near-death experience at the end of ‘Avengers’. This is perhaps Robert Downey Jr.’s best performance in the role; he still maintains the arrogant attitude that Tony is known to have, but it’s dialed down (which is a huge improvement over ‘Iron Man 2’) because of what he went through. This is a Tony Stark story; the fact that he’s not in the Iron Man suit as much doesn’t hurt the movie (another sort of unfair criticism if you ask me). The suit doesn’t make the man. It is the man who makes the suit. The ending, while definitely raising questions of how Tony will play into the next two Avengers films, serves a fitting conclusion to both this film and the whole trilogy itself.

Another big improvement over 2 is that Don Cheadle finally gets time to shine in this film and his camaraderie with Downey Jr. is much better. The whole cast is terrific, particularly the two main villains. As for Ben Kingsley, he succeeds at working with the major twist surrounding his character, being very intimidating while he’s The Mandarin, and goofy when he’s the actor Trevor Slattery. As for Guy Pearce who, spoilers, is basically the main villain, he’s also great. I like how the character was set up as an effective ‘demon’ for Tony. My one complaint about the film is that the female parts are rather underwritten. Yes, Gwyneth Paltrow still has fantastic chemistry with Downey Jr. and she does don the Iron Man suit for the first time in the film… for about 2 minutes. Aside from that moment and the finale, she’s once again stuck in the damsel in distress role the whole time. Rebecca Hall is stuck in a similar situation; not given anything to do. In fact, the movie really doesn’t make it clear about whose side she’s really on, especially considering that they kill her character off. But in the end, ‘Iron Man 3’, while not the best Iron Man movie, comes pretty damn close to being on the same level as the first film.

Rating: 4.5/5

As an added bonus, here are my further thoughts on ‘Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’ now that a few more episodes have aired and my thoughts on the first trailer for ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’.

Agents of SHIELD- 5 Episodes In

A couple of weeks ago, I gave a very positive review of the pilot for ‘Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’, where I praised the show’s more humanistic approach to the Cinematic Universe and for its terrific cast, especially Clark Gregg as Coulson (obviously) and Chloe Bennet as Skye. Now, there have four more episodes since the pilot and at the time I am posting this, the next episode will be airing tonight. Unfortunately, this show has now been hit with the same curse as ‘Iron Man 3’ and ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’; pretty solid critical reviews, but audiences have been mixed and, like ‘Into Darkness’, I’ve been hearing more negative reviews than positive.

Overall, I stand by my thoughts on the series. Sure, it may not be the best TV show ever but it continues to do a great job at developing its characters and the universe that they now live in after the events of ‘Avengers’. As far as the main cast goes, the only characters I think who haven’t really got much opportunity to shine in the show so far have been Fitz and Simmons. Both De Caestecker and Henstridge are doing great jobs, but for the most part, they’ve only played minor roles so far in the series. On the other side of the spectrum, Agent May, Agent Ward, Skye, and Coulson have been given more to do so hopefully they give more to Fitz and Simmons down the road. I do like that this series has actually started to establish future villains; one of whom being the character of Graviton (played by Ian Hart, who you might recognize as Quirrell from ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’). I also appreciate how the writers are still using the Extremis serum plot-point from ‘Iron Man 3’. It’s good to see that this series is continuing to establish its place in the Cinematic Universe.

Like in the pilot, the writers continue to do a very good job in developing its characters and, more importantly, some of the mysteries surrounding them; the biggest being whether or not the Coulson we know really died in ‘Avengers’ and the reason why he somehow miraculously survived. In Episode 4, ‘Eye-Spy’, the team tracks down a thief who turns to be a protégé of Coulson. At the end of the episode, the protégé speaks with May and mentions that ‘something’ is different about Coulson, giving further speculation to what really happened after Coulson was stabbed by Loki. Could he be a life-model decoy, perhaps? Another interesting storyline is revealed in Episode 5, ‘The Girl with the Flower Dress’, where Skye reveals to Coulson why she joined his team. She’s looking for her parents, who were connected with S.H.I.E.L.D. When Coulson mentions that she might not like what she finds, I get the feeling that this could spell trouble down the road. Could this possibly lead to some future villains on the show?             

Admittedly, the second episode was a little lackluster compared to the pilot (except for the awesome cameo from Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury), but recently the show has really started to take off and it’s become one of my favorite shows currently on television. I’m excited to see what routes the writers take in future episodes and how they might connect with the upcoming Marvel films, namely ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ because of how big of a role S.H.I.E.L.D. will play in that film. I do hope this series stays running for a while. The show did get a full-season order from ABC, but with the decreasing ratings and the increasing ‘meh’ response from audiences, a second season may be doubtful. I for one hope it does happen, especially considering how unlucky Whedon shows have fared in the last decade (‘Firefly’ after only 1 season and ‘Dollhouse’ after 2).

Speaking of Winter Soldier…

Captain America: The Winter Soldier- First Trailer Review

The first thing that hit me about this trailer is that it seems to eliminate the biggest fear I have about this movie; if directors Joe and Anthony Russo could handle a big summer blockbuster (albeit one coming in April, but that’s beside the point) when they have been mostly known for television work. On that note, the action looks really incredible and the film looks great from a visual standpoint. My other big praise about this trailer is that the film really feels like a true sequel to ‘The Avengers’. No offense to ‘Iron Man 3’ and ‘Thor: The Dark World’ (I’m guessing not much S.H.I.E.L.D. involvement in the latter, though I won’t hold that against it) but considering the level of involvement that S.H.I.E.L.D. has in this film, this one feels the closest to being the follow-up to ‘Avengers’. I’m also interested in seeing how they handle the more political aspects of the story because Cap is not entirely supportive of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s methods as we saw in ‘The Avengers’.

My sole complaint is how they portray the Winter Soldier in this trailer. For those of you who haven’t read the comics, the Winter Soldier is actually Captain America’s best friend James Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) who apparently died in ‘First Avenger’. As you can see, he actually survived and is brainwashed to become an assassin. The trailer doesn’t make any mention about how Barnes is the Winter Soldier so unless you knew about it going in, you might not recognize who the Winter Soldier is. However, I’m pretty sure that they will establish the relationship between him and Cap in the movie. But aside from that, the movie looks very good and I think it actually has the potential to be the best of the Phase Two films.

A review of ‘Thor: The Dark World’ will be out soon.