2017: The Year in Film: "Spider-Man: Homecoming" Review

So not only am I a Marvel nerd from way back, but Spider-Man has always been my dude. He was probably (like most kids) my entry point to superheroes, and he remains one of the most compelling characters in the comic canon, regardless of era, company, universe, etc. The strength and appeal of Spider-Man has always been that he's ultimately just a regular dude with regular problems and some pretty cool powers. In a superhero landscape filled with billionaires, gods and aliens, that makes Spider-Man stand out.

He's also had quite the journey on-screen thus far, with three Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire films hitting from 2002-2007, and two Marc Webb/Andrew Garfield films hitting in 2012 and 2014.  This probably puts me in the minority of superhero movie fans, but I never liked Raimi's vision of the character or how those movies played out. I thought his version of Peter Parker was a dopey putz, that the love interest had zero chemistry, and that the vision of a 1950's #MAGA-esque New York was hokey at best and offensive at worst. (Don't even get me started on the whole web shooters thing) I actually vastly prefer Andrew Garfield's version of Peter Parker and the Amazing Spider-Man films, even if #2 was a total mess which absolutely necessitated scrapping the whole thing.. not least of which because Andrew Garfield was a 28 year old dude pretending to be a high school kid. In the midst of Spidey's various travails over at Sony (for those of you that don't know, Marvel declared bankruptcy in the 90's and sold the film rights for its most powerful properties - Spider-Man went to Sony, while the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Daredevil, and Punisher all went to Fox) Marvel Studios built a juggernaut that has become the home of churning out quality superhero flick after quality superhero flick. Sony and Marvel/Disney (somehow) successfully negotiated a deal for Spider-Man to join the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe, with Spider-Man appearing in Marvel films and Marvel co-producing Spider-Man films for Sony. The newest version of Spider-Man, played by Tom Holland, made his triumphant debut in last year's Captain America: Civil War, and honestly stole the show. This flick has been high on my anticipated movies list ever since.

So Spider-Man: Homecoming marks the debut of Tom Holland's Peter Parker in his own flick, with his own Aunt May (played memorably by Marissa Tomei), within the wider Marvel Cinematic Universe populated by the likes of Iron Man and Captain America.

The Good: In my estimation, this is the definitive vision of Spider-Man that we've had in movie form. There are enough changes to keep things fresh while simultaneously perfectly capturing the feel of what makes Spider-Man such a continually appealing character. Unknown director Jon Watts really knocks this one out of the park, as his Spider-Man flick transcends your ordinary superhero flick to become a memorable coming of age tale inside of a Marvel movie. Peter Parker can barely keep his life together while struggling to juggle the demands of crimefighting, high school. academic decathlon, and keeping his identity a secret from his friends and family. This version of Peter is equal parts nerd, brilliant, determined, motor-mouthed, and an epic screw up. It feels right. Wisely, this flick skips over Spider-Man's origin, as no one needs to see another Uncle Ben (or Thomas and Martha Wayne for that matter) get shot. We're thrown into a world where Spider-Man already exists and has been operating for months. The film brilliantly positions itself within the wider MCU by slipping in between the margins of existing stories, establishing a memorable and believable villain in Michael Keaton's Vulture, and positioning Spider-Man within the wider world of the Avengers. The plot is equal parts John Hughes and Iron Man, in a brilliant blending of genres that further demonstrates the flexibility and worth of the superhero film. The cast is charming top to bottom, with Holland bringing charm, wit, likability, and a ton of humor to his version of Peter Parker, and supporting characters Ned (Jacob Batalon), Liz (Laura Harrier), Flash (Tony Revolori/Lobby Boy), and Michelle (Zendaya) all perfectly rounding out the high school ensemble. Hannibal Burris and Martin Starr have memorable supporting roles, Marisa Tomei's Aunt May is warm and funny, and Robert Downey Jr. basically IS Tony Stark at this point. The star of the show, for me, is Michael Keaton. In a universe that's been populated by "meh" villains, Keaton's Vulture is a rich and fearsome villain who's equal parts Walter White and Obediah Stane. This flick is, top to bottom, an absolute blast, and also asks questions that seem to be fundamental to the "haves" and "have nots" of the larger MCU.



The Bad: my main complaint is that, for as great as Keaton's villain is, his plot ultimately doesn't make sense. The film WANTS him to be a sympathetic figure, but at the end of the day, he broke too far bad for him to feel like a TRULY worthwhile foil. There are a lot of scenes with Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan that just feel like too much given that even I don't care about Happy THAT much, and I'm the biggest Marvel nerd I know. All in all, though, it's tough to complain too much about what is ultimately one of the best times I've had at the movies in years.

Ultimately, this film is an absolute blast. Full of laughs, full of charm, you'll be grinning from ear-to-ear while (hopefully) appreciating some great performances, excellent action sequences, and a plot that seems to move much, much faster than the 2 hr 15 min runtime. For my money, this is one of the best Marvel movies yet (top 5 for sure), which makes it more than worth your time if you're a fan of Spider-Man, Marvel, or superheroes even a little.

9/10

2015: The Year in Film: "Avengers: Age of Ultron" Review

So, if you're new to this blog and/or the idea of me, let me inform you: I'm a Marvel nerd and have been since at least 1990. I'm a Joss Whedon nerd. (I have a "Firefly" art print hanging in my living room) The first Avengers is one of my favorite movies and I feel one of the more watchable flicks of recent years. So, I'm pretty much this flick's target audience. If you don't like the Marvel Cinematic Universe (in which case, quit being such a spoilsport), Joss Whedon, or the first Avengers, you should bear what I just told you in mind while reading this review, and my review of all things Marvel. ("Daredevil" is awesome too guys!)

So, the Marvel Universe is one of the great successful experiments of our time. They've managed to, through 11 movies now and counting, (The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor, Thor 2, Captain America, Captain America 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers) create what we would have thought just 10 years ago was impossible - a cohesive comic book-style universe through a number of related and interconnecting movies. They've done this by hiring a number of talented filmmakers and by hitting home runs with all of their casting decisions. (they grabbed Robert Downey Jr. off of the scrap heap and turned him into the biggest movie star on the planet) Above all, they've done it through a commitment to quality. Even the worst Marvel movies (looking at you, Iron Man 2 and Thor) are better than your average superhero fare, and they remain pretty darn watchable, despite their flaws.

Enter: Avengers: Age of Ultron. We're shown that our heroes have been kicking ass and taking names off-screen since their last adventure, as they are clearly much more of a team now than they ever were in their first go-around. The Avengers are hunting Hydra and searching for Loki's staff around the globe as they strive to keep the world safe.

The Good: Marvel can make these movies in their sleep at this point, and Joss knows how to write his way around an ensemble. The leads are so charismatic, RDJ and Evans in particular, and the characters so well-established and rounded after multiple movies that everything just sort of rounds into place. New characters are effectively introduced (Vision is especially memorable) while existing characters continue to have their development moved forward. (except for Thor, who really gets the shaft in both Avengers movies) The film's villain, Ultron, an evil artificial intelligence voiced by James Spader, is a better villain than most of Marvel's villains up to this point, and Spader fleshes out Ultron with a gleeful menace that really brings a sense of desperation to the plot. The action sequences are impressive, and the presence of a menacing villain really ups the stakes. (Let's be real, as fun as Loki is, he was never a match for the Avengers once they got together) This film is darker than any Marvel film to date - but still manages to poke Zack Snyder and DC in the eye by having the Avengers go out of their way to save as many civilians as possible.



The Bad: This flick is totally and utterly overstuffed and you can tell significant cuts were made in spots to keep the runtime manageable. As a result, parts of the film feel rushed and the plot jumps around in spots. I blame Iron Man 3, and here's why: Ultron is created by Tony Stark in an effort to keep the world safe. That's KIND OF what the plot of Iron Man 3 was, but it's also not, really... and Stark developing AI that would ultimately become Ultron would have 1.) made Iron Man 3 all the better in the grand scheme of the MCU and 2.) meant that this flick wouldn't have needed so much background to create its villain. Since the first third of the film is setting up Ultron, the rest of the plot (introducing new Avengers, saving the world, etc.) feels rushed and under-served, and there just isn't enough of the meaty part of the film. Somewhere there's a 3 hr. plus director's cut of this film, and that's the one I want to see. Additionally, this flick kind of feels like a placeholder. It doesn't significantly advance the "infinity gem" storyline that had gained so much momentum through Thor 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy and as a result it feels like it's Marvel treading water before the main event comes in a few years.

Ultimately, this is a well-done, fun, quality, if flawed, addition to the Marvel Universe. It's not the crowning achievement that its predecessor was, but that would have made Joss Whedon an all-time legend, so I'm happy with what it is - a fun time at the movies with a lot of fun characters, cool moments and quality actors. As a Marvel superfan, I'm happy, but not thrilled.

8/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Iron Man 3" Review

Iron Man, due in large part to Robert Downey Jr.'s ridiculously charming portrayal, just might be the most popular fictional character on the planet right now. From the relative obscurity of Marvel's B-team (not popular enough to ensure that major studios purchased his film rights in the decades before 2008's "Iron Man" in the way that Marvel's premier properties Spider-Man, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four were bought by Sony and Fox) he's gone on to anchor two solo films that were huge hits domestically and worldwide as well as be the center of the 3rd biggest movie of all time, Avengers. It's odd then, in light of all this success that Iron Man 2 is widely seen as a slight misstep and the weakest entrant of all the Marvel flicks. After disagreements about its production led to the departure of director Jon Favreau, Marvel made the unorthodox decision to bring on writer/director Shane Black. Black, who had previously directed Downey Jr. in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, is most well known as the screenwriter of legendary action flicks like Lethal Weapon and The Last Action Hero. In this atmosphere of (admittedly slight) discord, Marvel moves into the post-Avengers era with its biggest star.

After the events of Avengers and the final battle that nearly took his life, Tony Stark finds his world shaken. He's buried himself in his work, making continued advances on his Iron Man technology while hardly finding the time to sleep or interact with the outside world. In the meantime, a new terrorist threat is rising, threatening the nation and Stark with mysterious and highly advanced attacks.


The Good: Downey, simply put, was born to play this role. His quips, mannerisms, quick tongue and steady supply of one liners makes Tony Stark simply one of the most loveable characters in pop culture today. Iron Man 3 is an extremely funny film, not afraid to play for a laugh whether it be through sight gags (I especially enjoyed 90's Happy Hogan doing his best Vincent Vega), one liners, or downright ridiculous small characters. The writing was tight and effective, with several twists that were unexpected. The film makes the interesting choice of having a large portion of it take place while Tony is nowhere near an Iron Man suit, forcing him to use his genius in other ways, which really serves to drive his characterization while grounding the flick away from expansive CGI. Never fear, true believers, for there is plenty of Iron Man action including cool tricks with new suits. Gwenyth Paltrow's Pepper Potts has an easy, familiar rapport with Downey and the two really serve to ground the goings-on as they have through 3 other films now. There are some great action sequences and strong supporting performances from Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce's menacing anti-Stark of sorts and blog favorite James Badge Dale. I like that the film manages to at once exist in the Marvel Universe and yet be a stand-alone Iron Man flick. The Avengers are acknowledged, but this is Stark's show, and that doesn't feel forced or false in the least.

The Bad: there are a few choices as far as plotting and character development that I feel were  perhaps ill-advised. There's a decision with the Mandarin that I feel largely wastes the potential of the character and Ben Kingsley altogether. I'll leave it at that, but in all honesty, that's my primary critique. It wastes a potentially strong plot device for continuing to drive the Iron Man and Marvel universe. In addition, the film, while very funny, at times dances on the line of sacrificing its necessary gravitas for a laugh. I won't say it ever crosses that line, but it's dangerously close a time or three.

In all, this is a splendid summer action flick and a strong entrant to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While it's not as much of a joy to watch as the first Iron Man film, it also doesn't benefit from the origin story, which is always the most easy to tell.  It's definitely a step up from the messy Iron Man 2, which falls apart at times and struggles with tone through its second act. Interestingly, this flick plays more like a conventional action film and less like a superhero movie. A lot of the credit/blame for that surely goes to Shane Black, but it works here, and really sets this flick apart from the other films.

Ultimately, this is a fun time at the movies that while falling short of the peak of the superhero genre, remains a strong addition to Marvel's roster. Whatever the future of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark may be, this is a solid addition to the series.

8/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Avengers" Review

The wait is over folks. The comic book movie to end all comic book movies is upon us, the culmination of a grand experiment begun by then upstart Marvel movie studios in 2008 that resulted in 5 separate and surprisingly, consistently strong movies culminating in the first grand comic book "event" movie. 4 separate characters that have each anchored successful films independently come together in the ultimate "team" movie, in an event that promises to change comic book movies forever, either for the better or for worse. Basically, Marvel Studios has run their film franchises like a comic book universe.. with a consistent continuity where each individual hero has their own storylines that overlap in particular instances resulting in occasional "events" where the heroes come together to face a threat they cannot face alone. Who better to handle such a task than Joss Whedon, the nerd-tastic mind behind "Buffy" and "Firefly" (shows renowned for their strong ensemble writing), who also penned a legendary run on "Astonishing X-Men" in comics? As someone who's read Marvel comics for basically his entire life and nerded out over every single movie Marvel has put out so far, I'm more or less their target audience.. please keep this in mind while reading my nerdgasm/review. So let's talk about the movie already, shall we?

First, I feel like this is the perfect, quintessential comic book movie. It encapsulates perfectly what makes comic books so fun and popular. The sense of wonder, the bold, soundbyte-ready dialogue, the high stakes, the epic personalities, if you're wondering why comic books have continued to be so beloved and popular over decades, look no further than what Marvel's managed to do here. This flick could have been an absolute mess. Take a look at the middle third of Iron Man 2, all of Spider Man 3, or any number of crappy DC adaptions over the years to see how superhero movies end up when they drift too far into campy silliness or neglect character in favor of action. Marvel has done something truly remarkable here.. they've made something that successfully builds on every single one of the prior films while also working effectively as a stand-alone film. That is no small feat. Of the 5 prior Marvel films (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk (Edward Norton version), Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America) I would say that watching at the very least "Captain America" and "Thor" will greatly aid in your enjoyment of this one. Of course, I watched and nerded out over every single one and have grown up as a total Marvel nerd, so the richness of the world created by Whedon for this film is just rewarding on multiple levels. You can get as into this one as you'd like.

Thor's brother Loki, Norse "God" of mischief, returns to earth seeking to harness a source of great power in order to conquer the earth. Top secret intelligence division, S.H.I.E.L.D., finds themselves overwhelmed, and in response to this great threat to the planet, seeks to "assemble" "Earth's mightiest heroes". Introductions ensue, and the group seeks to gain some common ground in order to counter Loki's threat.


What makes this movie great is the characterization.  Something that could easily have felt stuffed, confusing and crowded instead feels rich and full, with very little fluff and wasted time even despite a runtime nearing 2 and a half hours.  Every single character gets at least one moment to shine and they almost all get more characterization than many comic book characters receive in entire movies.  As is to be expected with Whedon, the film is very, very funny.  There were several moments where the crowd was laughing so hard that I actually missed bits of dialogue.

Iron Man is the star of this one.  Tony Stark is given the strongest material to work with, and his arc actually seems richer than Stark's did in either one of the Iron Man flicks.  We may have just seen the definitive Bruce Banner as well.  Ruffalo knocks Banner out of the park, and this version of the Hulk is by far the best of the three we've seen in the last decade.  Captain America's arc is extremely effective as well, and he emerges to take his proper place among the group.  If I have knocks, they are thus: Thor wasn't given as meaty an arc as the rest of the super-powered Avengers, and ScarJo simply played the Black Widow too flat.  But these are minor, minor criticisms.

Whedon directs a hell of an action scene and writes incredible dialogue.  The effects are pitch-perfect, and the interplay between characters is everything you could possibly want from an Avengers movie.  As should be expected, Robert Downey Jr is simply great.  His version of Tony Stark is so damn smart, witty and charming that it's simply not possible to find yourself glued to him when he's on screen.  Ruffalo and Chris Evans are right there with him.  Hemsworth, Renner and Sam L. all are very effective and hold their own.  As Loki, Tom Hiddleston had a crucial part, interacting with virtually every other major character, and if he had fallen flat, the movie would suffer hugely.  Rest assured that he does not. ScarJo had some strong scenes.. I think the problem may be that Black Widow is simply not as interesting as Joss Whedon thinks she is.  But that's seriously my only criticism.  That Thor's part isn't as meaty as Cap's, Iron Man's or Hulk's, and that ScarJo seems to be comparatively distant, considering how all-in everyone else seemingly is.  When we're talking about a 145 minute movie with at least 8 major characters, massive effects and the seemingly impossible task of balancing characters that each are beloved and designated franchises in their own right, the fact that those are seriously the extent of my criticisms is down right incredible.

Make no mistake, this isn't "The Dark Knight".  It's not a dark, metaphorical look at philosophical ideas.. it's a comic book story written and developed for the screen.  The stakes are high, characters are given moments in the sun, and there's a whole lot of fun to be had.  This may well be the most entertaining movie I've ever seen.  I saw it at midnight in a theater full of dressed up nerds.  We laughed, we cheered, we enjoyed the hell out of it. 

9/10.  We now have the definitive Summer Blockbuster.  Couldn't have happened to a better group of people.  Oh, and more than half of the flick was filmed in Ohio.