Avengers: Age of Ultron - 2015

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" - 2015
Dir. by Joss Whedon - 2 hrs. 21 min.

Trailer #3

by Clayton Hollifield

Well, I think my streak of seeing Marvel movies is just about over.  No, not because of "Avengers: Age of Ultron," it was just fine.  Instead, I saw trailers for both "Ant-Man" and the "Fantastic Four" reboot, and I'm pretty sure I'll be giving one of those a big ol' pass.  FF, in particular, looks brutal.  But we're not here to talk about those films, we're here to talk about the official sequel to one of the biggest-grossing, most-beloved action films in recent years.  And it was pretty good.  I didn't like it as much as the first, or even as much as the first "Iron Man" and "Thor" films, but I did like it.  I think, once some time has passed, and another Avengers film comes along, that this will come off better, and as part of a longer story being told.  Right now, it's much like the second "Star Wars" film, in that it's the "bummer" film, and until another movie in the series comes out, it's the final word on the story.

The Avengers start off avenging, crashing Baron Strucker's (Thomas Kretchmann) party and liberating Loki's wand-thingy from the grips of evil-doers.  Tony Stark (Ghostface Killah Robert Downey, Jr.) borrows the wand for a few days for some research, which means trying to understand how Asgardian technology works.  Ultimately, after bonding over being mad scientists, Stark draws in Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) to help with the research, as there's a bit of a time crunch before the artifact is to be returned to Asgard.  The goal: artificial intelligence, in the form of something that will help prevent something like what happened in the first Avengers movie from happening.  The actual result: a crazy robot named Ultron (voiced by James Spader) that wants to, well, you know exactly what a crazy-ass robot accidentally created by Iron Man and the Hulk is going to want to do.

So, I wasn't kidding when I said this was the "bummer" film in the series.  Part of that is that the events in the first Avengers film have had lasting effects (Iron Man, in particular, has had difficulty in processing all of it), but part of it that one of the opponents they have to deal with, the Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), has the power of killing positive vibes and forcing people to wade through their own personal nightmares.  This leads to one of the best action sequences, the thing that should have been built around in it's own film, putting fright and fury into the Hulk, which results in even more of the carnage that Dr. Banner has been trying to avoid and atone for.  The message of the film is very much that people are often their own worst enemies (and that everything is better when you're part of a team, if you can manage to keep that team on the same page), and messages have to be felt and understood, not just explained to people.  That means that everyone on the team will have to suffer in their own heads (which also leaves open the door for some stellar character development, where you kind of start to understand what it is exactly that motivates each character).  These scenes aren't easy viewing, but they are good filmmaking.

Big action films need a couple of things.  Big action pieces (check.)  Big stakes (check).  Bringing back as much of the cast as humanly possible (check - the only people that were really missing was Pepper Potts and Natalie Portman's character, and they were both discussed within the plot, so I don't think we're to assume that Ms. Portman and Ms. Paltrow have been written out of the series).  Once you get past that stuff, it helps if you can sympathize with the characters, even if they're on opposite sides (check).  And maybe if there wasn't another Avengers film, I would have liked this one better.  The big issue was that the first Avengers film felt epic (and not in a internetty way, in a Homeric way).  The action sequence at the end of that one was exhilarating and exhausting in a completely satisfying way, and hit upon something that I rarely see in films (how fighting for something, even something worthwhile, can wear you down to your very soul, and leave marks that can't be seen).  Even though the stakes in "Age of Ultron" were large, it never felt epic in the same way.  It was a giant battle, but felt on an individual scale.  And the result never really felt like it was in doubt.

From where I'm sitting, "Avengers: Age of Ultron" felt more like another one of Marvel's admittedly pretty damned good string of solo character films that like another event film, like the first "Avengers."  That means it was still good, all the things that you would have enjoyed about the other combination of characters are still there (like the character interactions and fast-paced dialogue), and it didn't break the string of enjoyable Avengers-related films.  But things might look different five years from now, if there's a third Avengers film and more story with these characters.  I leave open the possibility that "Ultron" will feel more like an important, but down chapter in the longer story when the whole deal is wrapped up.  I do not leave open the possibility that the new "Fantastic Four" film is going to be any good whatsoever, though.  That's straight doo-doo.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre (3D)

The Spirit - 2008

"The Spirit" - 2008
Dir. by Frank Miller - 1 hr. 43 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There are people who will try to convince you that "The Spirit" is one of the worst comic book movies ever made.  Those people are not your friends, they have no insight into the material at hand, and speak in hyperbole because they're unable to grasp the concept of relativity.  They also have poor manners, smell like garbage, frequently don't wash their hands after going to the bathroom because "I didn't pee on my hands," like Journey unironically, and probably have something in their house with the word "artisinal" on the label.  This is only the first couple sentences of these people's psychological profile, but the truth of the matter is that people who don't like "The Spirit" also don't like themselves.  To put it in perspective, there's been an awful lot of haterade being sipped upon in regards to Frank Miller over the last decade, and this film got gobbled up along with it.  My argument is that this is actually a fine film sunk by the fact that a lot of people didn't get the tone of it, and that people were still mad about "Dark Knight 2," and that a lot of people will name-drop Will Eisner without have ever read anything by him in the first place.

A dead cop named Denny Colt (Gabriel Macht) comes back from the dead, puts a Lone Ranger mask on, and becomes The Spirit, an extra-legal vigilante that works in tandem with Central City's police force, Commissioner Dolan (Dan Lauria) in particular.  The Spirit's main foe is The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson), who is locked in a mortal battle with The Spirit, but there's more to that than there initially seems.  There are also a number of women circling The Spirit, some good, some bad.

There are a number of problems in adapting "The Spirit" into a movie.  First, it was a comic strip that started roughly during World War II and ran through the early 1950's (albeit with a changing creative team), and at least one of the main characters was drawn in a racially insensitive way (Eisner swore that it wasn't done with malice, it was just the convention of the time, and apologized for it).  Secondly, the strip itself was episodic (each story was eight pages long, and there weren't really many stories that extended beyond that), so trying to cobble together a feature-length story out of bits and fragments is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle made out of a bunch of jigsaw puzzles.  Thirdly, the lasting historical importance of Eisner's "The Spirit" stories had much less to do with the stories themselves than with Eisner's creative design, page layouts, and storytelling innovations.  Fourth, Eisner passed away a couple of years before this film began production, and it was reported that Frank Miller agreed to take on the project partially out of fear for how badly the film might turn out in lesser hands (Miller and Eisner were good friends, and there's even a book published of their discussions on the artform of comic books).  Fifth, this is probably the single most famous image from "The Spirit" comics:

So, the upshot is that the character in question is pretty much only famous because it's creator went on to become a pioneer of graphic novels (later, of course), and the stories that were created are more famous for their execution than their content, and there was fear that the movie would get made by people who didn't "get it."  And instead, the audience didn't get it.  Part of the misunderstanding is that Frank Miller's work can come off as taking itself too seriously (with things like gruff voices and overtly focused characters), but that in itself is the satire.  And, instead of viewing this version of "The Spirit" as being a fun send up of a very-dated character and concept, people assumed that Miller was the one that missed the mark.  Which is probably because no one had ever bothered to read "The Spirit" in the first place.

I'm baffled as to how people could have missed that this was a comedy.  At which point do you not get that these are jokes; when The Spirit goes around trying to identify Sand Seref (Eva Mendes) with a photocopy of her ass?  And successfully does so?!? When The Octopus' clones run around, identical and identified by single words on their shirt like "huevos" and "rancheros?"  Perhaps The Octopus giving a giant speech in nazi regalia to a bound Spirit could have been a clue?  Or when Silken Floss (Scarlett Johansson) raves about how much she loves her lifestyle because she gets to run around looking awesome all the time?  Maybe the problem is that people assumed the source material was more somber, to which I'd refer you to the image two paragraphs prior.

But if you're determined to hate anything that Frank Miller does, if you're determined to be clueless about what you're watching, if you're the sort of person who thinks it's the height of taste to dismiss the Batman movies because of Christian Bale's voice, just stay away from "The Spirit."  Not just because you're wasting your time being hard-headed, not just because you're willing yourself to have a bad time, but also because I just don't want to hear it.  Complaining about everything under the sun isn't a sign that you've developed great taste, it's just exhausting.  And it must be exhausting to live that way.  I prefer to enjoy fun movies that are jammed full of craziness and beautiful women (and c'mon, this is a murderer's row of beauty), and I'm going to keep doing that.  You can keep frowning at everything, and I hope your frowns give you painful, itchy hemorrhoids, so that you can truly have something to complain about.

3 / 5 - Streaming

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - 2014

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" - 2014
Dir. by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo - 2 hrs. 16 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I guess Marvel's "Avengers" line of movies is kind of like my version of a soap opera.  I can't be bothered to keep up with TV shows, even ones I like (I'm near the end of the 5th season of "Psych"; it wrapped up it's 8th and final season this year).  And I sure as hell can't be bothered with those shows that you have to watch every episode the exact second it's released (like "Game of Thrones" or "The Walking Dead"); you can go to hell with your appointment television.  But if you ask me to turn up at the theatre every few months, deliver good action and decent stories that advance a larger story, and throw in Scarlett Johansson every so often for good measure, well, that's a commitment I can keep.  And, at least with the Avengers series of films, Marvel's made good on their end of things, frequently making better movies with these characters that have ever been done in the comics.

In the second Captain America film, Cap (Chris Evans) has spent a little time adjusting to having been thawed out and thrust into modern times, but finds S.H.I.E.L.D.'s methods of fighting their enemies a tad distasteful (summation: Cap asks Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) didn't they used to have to commit crimes first before being punished?).  The impetus for this is the recovery of a S.H.I.E.L.D. boat from pirates, which goes a little sideways.  Plus, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) was given a side mission, involving recovering data, unbeknownst to Cap.  When Nick Fury is assassinated after learning that there's something hinky going on within S.H.I.E.L.D., Cap is tasked with getting to the bottom of it by a dying Fury, as well as being grilled on what happened by Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford), who controls S.H.I.E.L.D. in Fury's absence.  And during the action-filled assassination attempt (Fury's a tough one to stamp out), we're introduced to a super-assassin, called the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan).

So yes, there definitely is a Marvel movie formula by now, and that requires at least a couple of giant battle scenes, a journey of personal discovery, and fighting against impossible odds (that's what makes these characters heroes, after all).  "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" delivers all of that.  There are big action scenes, all of which are pretty good.  There's fun car stuff in the assassination of Nick Fury, the recovery of the S.H.I.E.L.D. boat has good hand-to-hand combat action, the first battle between the Winter Soldier and Cap is fast and furious (and provides some intrigue for the rest of the movie), and the GIANT BATTLE at the end is spectacular.  But aside from these now-expected sections of the films, the real hallmark of this run of films is the relationships and dialogue between the characters.

The only thing I knew about "Cap 2" going in was from the trailer that I had seen, which was basically just an elevator fight scene (and a cool one at that).  So the inclusion of Black Widow as a main supporting character was a welcome surprise, and they share a different chemistry than one might expect.  They become protective of one another over the course of the film, and it feels like Black Widow eventually lets down her guard a bit around Cap (although her shifting personality traits according to situational need is a basic tenet of her character).  There's also a new addition, that of Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie), who is a former soldier himself who bonds with Cap over their shared experiences, and ends up being a very valued friend to Cap.  Even Fury and Cap have some good back and forths, debating different sides of their own shared goals.

One of the things that I did appreciate about "Cap 2" is that it was a movie that was about more than just blowing stuff up and punching things.  That sort of story is very easy to tell with these sorts of characters, but the crux of the story is whether or not it's right to use every available means to maintain one's safety, especially when that means encroaching on everyone's freedom.  The stakes are literal here: would you kill twenty million people to make the other seven billion safe?  And more to the point, who would you trust to make that choice?  If power corrupts, having the means to kill people before they've even committed a crime because they might prove inconvenient down the road is a lot of power.  The Captain America character might be a Boy Scout, but that's a necessary counterbalance to those who fancy themselves "realists," who seem to be just itching for an excuse to get their hands dirty (with no personal consequence, of course).

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" was another really good installment in this series of films.  There were some unexpected twists, ScarJo making a "WarGames" joke, good action, good characters that I've come to really enjoy, and enough of a tease for forthcoming material to make me want to come back whenever the next installment comes out.  In other words, really good serial storytelling.  "Cap 2" doesn't benefit from the freshness of the first "Iron Man" movie, and it's not really a surprise that one of the Marvel movies is going to be a good time.  And this isn't sheer awesomeness, like "The Avengers," that had the benefit of a multi-year, multi-film build AND Joss Whedon.  No, this is just another good installment in a good run of movies, and when your seventh or eighth installment is still pretty darned good (beyond just another return to characters you enjoy watching), that's a success.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre

A Good Woman - 2004

"A Good Woman" - 2004
Dir. by Mike Barker - 1 hr. 33 min.

Official Trailer #1

by Clayton Hollifield

There are a few things that I have an inexplicable soft spot for.  One such thing is the work of Oscar Wilde.  It's not to suggest that his work is without merit, that is certainly not the case.  But I usually enjoy more... streamlined work.  I guess you could say more American work.  Wilde's best material is heavy on witty dialogue and glamorous settings (this is set in the 1930s, initially in New York, and then in Italy), and social interplay.  These are not things that frequently interest me.  But Wilde had such a way with what he did that I find his work irresistible, and find him to be a very compelling figure.  I even have "oscar wilde" set as a search term on my DVR, to see what turns up about him (I also have "jonestown" saved, to round out this peek into my personality).  "A Good Woman" turned up sometime over the last year, and I was finally in the mood to watch it this weekend.

Mrs. Erlynne (Helen Hunt) suddenly finds herself struck by a sudden turn of fortune.  Basically, all of the wives in her social circle have simultaneously discovered that their respective husbands have been carrying on with her, and they cut off her sources of income.  She divests herself of her investments and makes off for Europe, having hatched a scheme involving a pair of newlyweds.  The newlyweds Robert and Meg Windermere (Mark Umbers and Scarlett Johansson, respectively), are in Italy on their honeymoon, along with a batch of other expats, like Tuppy (Tom Wilkinson), who is on the hunt for a third wife, and sisters Contessa Lucchino (Milena Vukotic) and Lady Plymdale (Diana Hardcastle).  Mrs. Erlynne comes across Robert shopping for his wife's birthday present, and offers her opinion, which leads to some things and some misunderstandings.  I mean, it's an Oscar Wilde story - half the deal is going to be what people are doing behind other people's backs, and the other half is what the people in the story think that other people are doing behind other people's backs.

First off, the plot is sufficiently tangled to stay interesting over the course of the movie, and a couple of the twists are doozies.  I don't want to give short shrift to this part of the movie - the story is well-executed, interesting, and I'd rather not blow any of the twists.  But an even bigger part of "A Good Woman" is the notion of visually luxuriating in beauty.  It's maybe the most pervasive thing about the film; the settings are so beautiful as to feel dream-like (something that Baz Luhrmann played with in his recent version of "The Great Gatsby," and I think this is a valid comparison even beyond the two films having been set in roughly the same time period), the characters exist mostly only in the pursuit of luxury (a function of the social class and setting being written about).  It's like a perfect vacation, where everyone's always dressed to the nines, drinks are always flowing, and everyone talks in witty rejoinders.

But of course, the real visual focus of "A Good Woman" rests on the unbared shoulders of Helen Hunt and Scarlett Johansson.  Although they play characters at nearly polar opposites of life experience, they both end up wearing the same dress at the same party, and one's opinion about who wears it better likely depends heavily on which of the actresses one's age is closer to.  That's to say, the two woman here are testaments to why female beauty is an enduring subject of art, now and forever.  This isn't the only reason to watch "A Good Woman," but the dynamic of how Mrs. Erlynne uses her beauty in an aggressive, clever manner to get what she wants, against how Meg Windermere's naivety and idealism make her an uncomfortable target of affection from other men is observant and nuanced, which is probably why this movie aired on Showtime's "Women" channel instead of higher up on their hierarchy.  Although the scenes aren't juxtaposed against one another, there are parallel scenes where Mrs. Erlynne is courted by Tuppy (a very adult, pragmatic conversation, although one not devoid of romantic passion), and Meg's husband's best friend pursues her in earnest, which she's been clear is unwelcome, but she doesn't seem to have the tools to keep him at arm's length (or further away).

"A Good Woman" is a pleasant ride, with great visual attention paid to beauty of all kinds.  It's not a story about big things, it's a movie about a young couple's love, and the ways that the less scrupulous and more cynical can derail that love.  The stakes may not be high, but the story goes along so smoothly and with so many great lines being traded off, and I promise you that you'll never look at a woman's mostly bare back in the same way.  This might not be your cup of tea, but it's not the sort of thing that one would regret watching.  But if it is the sort of thing you're into, dig in.

3.5 / 5 - TV (HD)

Hitchcock - 2012

"Hitchcock" - 2012
Dir. by Sacha Gervasi - 1 hr. 38 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I'm pretty sure that if you put Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, Toni Collette, and Michael Wincott in the same movie, the results are going to be, at the absolute minimum, fairly watchable.  When you put those people in a movie about Alfred Hitchcock and the making of "Psycho," you're got something going.  And this was a good movie, an easy one to get into and watch, and it also falls prey to the need to explore a legendary figure's clay feet.  Since that's a large part of the tension of the movie, it's understandable, and ultimately, Hitchcock himself isn't lessened by any of this, but it's not really a trend that I'd want to encourage.

Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins), fresh off the success of "North by Northwest," is searching for his next project, his final film on his studio contract.  Hitch settles on adapting "Psycho," a novel by Robert Bloch, about serial killer Ed Gein, but is met with incredible resistance.  Hitch ends up having to finance the film himself, relying heavily on it's success.  The pressure of everything starts to get the better of him, and his marriage (and professional partnership) with Alma (Helen Mirren) starts to show cracks.  For his part, he's jealous of Alma's friendship with another writer, and for her part, she's jealous of the attention Hitch pays to the young starlets that he directs, like Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) and Vera Miles (Jessica Biel).

There are two things that pull at "Hitchcock" upon an initial viewing; there's a lot more drama in the story if you don't know much about the man himself, or about "Psycho."  At the same time, I'm not entirely sure why anyone would want to see this movie if they weren't already interested in Hitchcock, or about the making of "Psycho."  Since I knew a bit about Hitchcock and his career, many of the things that were supposed to be dramatic came off instead as people who were proven wrong in time trying to flex their muscles on him and his work.  That lends a lightness to the proceedings (it's a lot harder to get mad at a studio head telling Hitchcock that they don't want to do "Psycho" when you know that the movie itself became a basis for a part of the Universal Studios tour at the theme parks, which suggests at least a basic level of success for the film) that helps the movie fly by.  That leaves most of the heavy dramatic lifting up to Hitchcock's mercurial relationship with his wife, the strains of making a film that you're paying every dime for, and for the possibility that Alma might step out on Hitch with the writer that she's working with, Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston).

The problem with watching a "behind the scenes" movie is that you're going to have to get into some stuff you'd probably rather not know about someone.  "Hitchcock" isn't really a muckraking movie, but there's difficulty with incorporating the peeping tom/gluttonous/jealous side of Hitch with his work, which still represents some of the finest films ever made.  It shouldn't matter that he sometimes had harsh words for his wife, or that both of them were occasionally stubborn; that's real life.  But since this is essentially the story of Alma getting her due (she, at one point, declines a by-line, saying that the people who matter would know that she was invovled), both publicly and from Hitchcock himself, it's important to show her being occasionally taken for granted, mistreated, and to be less than thrilled about that.

"Hitchcock" is a smooth ride, one that rewards fans of the director and of "Psycho" both.  And with the cast involved, there aren't any weak spots to be found.  It's kind of a feel-good story, which is odd for the characters involved, but it still works.  There wasn't much drama to be found, but that was probably by design; a lot of this story demands a certain level of knowledge of it's viewers.  And the reward is that both Alma gets her due, and we all get confirmation that even if nobody believed it at the time, Alfred knew exactly what he was doing.

3 / 5 - TV (HD)

The Avengers - 2012

"The Avengers" - 2012
Dir. by Joss Whedon - 2 hrs. 23 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Long-term planning is both difficult, and impressive when it actually comes off.  If you want to count Ang Lee's "Hulk," which came out in 2003, Marvel Comics has been working towards this film for nearly a decade.  That's an incredible amount of patience and planning, but again, when it works, you've got a real gem on your hands.

On the off chance that you're not familiar with The Avengers, it's based on a comic book that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby co-created in the early 1960's (although Captain America was created around twenty years before that by Kirby and Joe Simon).  At least in this movie, the team of super-heroes (TM Marvel Comics and DC Comics, and no, I'm not kidding about that) is comprised of Captain America (Chris Evans), Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), under the leadership of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and S.H.I.E.L.D., which is a super-secret spy organization.  We've met most of these characters in the series of movies leading up to "The Avengers," but even if we hadn't, they're all introduced well here.

The action kicks off when Loki (Thor's adopted, insanely-jealous brother, played by Tom Hiddleston) drops in on Earth, and steals a powerful device called the Tesseract.  Loki intends to trade the device to the leader of an alien army, who will then help enslave Earth.  This is largely a ploy to get back at Thor, as he's taken a liking to Earth.  Nick Fury's been planning for such a situation, and calls the Avengers in to retrieve the Tesseract.  If you know much about the characters involved, them acting like a team is not natural to anyone.  The whole thing comes down to the Avengers defending the city of New York against Loki and his alien hordes.  If that sounds like a rather slight basis for a movie, I'd say two things.  First, you're dealing with about eight characters who have roughly equal billing, and secondly, it's an action movie.  I'm not talking about the details of the action because my words don't have muscles and special effects and loud bangs.  Just trust that the action fills in the gaps nicely.

One of the things that makes "The Avengers" so much fun is the constant ego-clashing.  There are three characters present who have already had their own excellent feature-films (and Hulk, who had two uneven films), and it would stand to reason that Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America all have their own well-defined personalities and quirks, and are largely unaccustomed to having to accommodate others.  They have to earn each other's respect first, and before that happens, there are constant verbal barbs between them, and one spectacular physical showdown that only proves that none of them can punch their way out of  having to deal with one another.  There's also a story between Black Widow and Hawkeye (who is entranced by Loki in their initial battle, and spends a chunk of the film fighting on Loki's side), the closest thing to a love story (albeit a very unsentimental one) here.  For fans who have seen the previous films, the characters all behave just like you'd expect them to (which is difficult when dealing with this many people), and the fireworks that ensue are a huge chunk of what's great here.

And yes, the action here is very satisfying.  There are a lot of spectacular sights, and the extended battle sequence in New York is fantastic.  In lesser films, I'm becoming numb to the city-wide destruction thing; in the trailers before "The Avengers" alone, there were two movies using the same idea.  And that doesn't even include recent films like the "Transformers" series, "Battle: Los Angeles," or even "Fast Five," where Rio takes a hellacious beating.  People who are squeamish about seeing New York get attacked on-screen clearly haven't been watching many action films; this is the standard action movie trope that's getting violently humped into the ground just like the "baddie with a super-virus" plot that was inescapable about ten to fifteen years ago.  So on it's own, that aspect is neither a positive nor a negative (but I'm warning you, filmmakers, this idea is tap-dancing on the border of played out), but it's what is done with it that matters.

The real story here is not about a battle, it's about a group of people with extraordinary abilities setting aside their egos in order to work together to achieve something that one person can't achieve on their own.  How bipartisan!  There are bumps and bruises along the way to achieving that (and the interactions between Cap and Iron Man directly address that), but this is a movie about the need for cooperation (in the way that the Batman movies are about dealing with terrorism) between diametrically opposed forces.  The message isn't heavy-handed, but when you've got a dyed-in-the-wool patriot having to cooperate with a billionaire playboy and a legit God from Asgard, and they're all literally fighting to save America, you can make of that what you will (Congress, I'm looking in your direction).

But with the years of anticipation building for fans of the Avengers, is this really the best comic book movie ever made?  No, I'd have to say it isn't.  It's easily on par with the films leading up to it, with the added bonus of finally getting to see established characters interact with one another, and it's a damned fine film.  For my money, "The Dark Knight" is as good as it gets.  But then again, "The Avengers" is an entirely different beast.  It's intended to be about rad characters doing awesome things and bickering with one another.  It satisfies on all of those levels, thank goodness.  Dropping the ball after so much build-up would have been unbearable.

NOTE: Usually, I don't like to mention any kind of creative disputes about the creation of a film, but as excellent as Marvel Comics' movies have been, none of it would have been possible without the pencil of Jack Kirby (and legions of other artists, as well).  Unfortunately, Marvel has historically had a difficult time admitting as such, and their continued difficulty is absurd, considering that the Avengers is a billion-dollar movie.  If you're so inclined, read this article and consider making a donation to the Hero Initiative, a charity that helps out the authors and illustrators who have made movies like this possible with their hard work.

4.5 / 5 - Theatre