Captain America: The First Avenger

This very well may be the most fun movie to come out this Summer.

Captain America: The First Avenger harkens back to classic adventure films that are rarely—if ever—made today. It feels more Indiana Jones than Saving Private Ryan, to its credit. It's not even attempting to reach the hyper-realism of The Dark Knight, which does the film a service. Too often today do we get dark, gritty films that teach us the lower limits of humanity, when we truly need an uplifting tale that shows us the very best within ourselves.

Captain America is remarkably family-friendly. There's little more than a "hell" or "damn" thrown in, and almost no on-screen blood. It's refreshing to have a modern superhero film that goes back to the made-for-all-ages heart of the original comics—and still with enough depth to keep the adults just as entertained as their kids.

Chris Evans was an odd choice to play Steve Rogers, mostly because he had already played The Human Torch—another Marvel hero—whose personality is the polar opposite of his character here. And yet, here he completely reverses his usual acting persona, playing the ultra-idealistic, honor-and-respect-driven Captain America perfectly. He feels completely genuine in every single scene, and he owns the movie entirely.
Of special note is the bogglingly real "skinny Steve Rogers" camera/CG/probably-magic effect that makes Chris Evans look like an actual skinny short guy in the scenes before he is physically transformed into a super-soldier. (did I just invent the word "bogglingly?" Maybe. Cool.)

The supporting cast is surprisingly good. Hayley Atwell plays Peggy Carter with a sharpness that evokes similar hard-edged comic characters like Lois Lane. She doesn't feel forced into the plot like other superhero love interests, and actually has a believable chemistry with Steve.

James "Bucky" Barnes is the secondary character that's given the most depth, despite the fact that he gets a bit less screentime than Peggy, Erskine, and Phillips. He's got just the right amount of tough attitude, depth and likable comedic timing. He's also a great action hero character. More than anything, however, it's his friendship with Steve that really makes Bucky remarkable here. They feel like brothers, and it really helps to personalize the movie. For fans of the comics who know Bucky and his history, seeing him—and specifically the events that affect him in the movie—is a special treat.

The other side characters, including the scientist Abraham Erskine, Col. Chester Phillips, Iron-Man's-dad Howard Stark, and the rest of Cap's team known as the Howling Commandos (never named in the film), are all well-acted and plenty-enjoyable to watch.

The antagonist, Johann Schmidt—The Red Skull—is the very definition of a power-mad evil villain. He's so incredibly perfect in his archetypal portrayal that he and Cap are the perfect balance, as well they should be.

The action in this film is exactly how comic fans always imagined it would be: stylized, slightly unrealistic (in a good way), and extremely cool. There's nothing quite like the glee you get when Cap throws his mighty shield into a Nazi and it bounces back into his hand. It's sheer comic book magic.

The movie isn't without a few problems. There's a framing storyline that's a bit underwhelming, and the final moments of the movie act as more of a setup to 2012's The Avengers, rather than rounding out this particular story itself.
While this film is the very definition of good, honest fun, it's not quite on the level of perfection that Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade mastered. Then again, not being as good as the two best Indy films isn't really saying very much.

In the end, Captain America is an awesomely fun movie. It's definitely one of Marvel Studios' best, and may go down as one of the best superhero films to date.

9/10

Green Lantern

For those who don't know, I am a huge fan of the Green Lantern character and comics. I've read the original story upon which this film is based multiple times, and enjoyed it greatly. I wish I could say the same of the film itself.

The basis for Green Lantern is this:
On the distant planet Oa, the guardians of the universe created the Green Lantern Corps, a group made up of 3600 individuals recruited from across the universe. Using their green power rings—technological weapons of incredible strength, fueled by their user's willpower and imagination—they act as intergalactic policemen, keeping innocents safe from various threats.
Hal Jordan, an overly cocky fighter pilot, has now been recruited as the first-ever human Green Lantern. Meanwhile, Parallax, a massively powerful and evil being made of pure fear, is on a course headed for Earth. Hal must deal with his own personal fears before being able to successfully wield the ring's power and defeat Parallax.

The bizarre thing about this film is that it gets so much of the Green Lantern universe right, but doesn't make it interesting. Hal Jordan's story is somehow robbed of its emotional resonance from the comics, despite the fact that most of the story is exactly the same. It's the little moments that are missing; the ones that show Hal as a compelling character. The same goes for every other character in the film. The audience is simply never given a reason to care about any of the main characters.

The best scenes on an emotional level are the romantic bits between Hal and his former girlfriend, Carol Ferris. While Carol is perhaps shown too often as nothing more than a support for Hal, her scenes are genuinely sweet. One moment in particular is notably hilarious, and contains the best genuine laugh in the entire movie.

The script in this movie is awful. Every single line is terribly bland. Hal is somewhat funny, but it seems as though most of that humor was due to Ryan Reynolds' improv skills and comedic timing. The overall story and editing are terribly problematic as well. The film jumps back and forth between plotlines in ways that are more frustrating and distracting than anything else. Furthermore, the interesting plotlines (those involving the Corps) end up going nowhere. Certain plot twists come up only in order to set up a sequel, and the main villain isn't even a real character.

Parallax isn't a character; he's just a giant puffy-headed death cloud. The only character that's actually developed as a villain is Hector Hammond, but he's more of an annoyance in the film than anything else. He's not interesting, he's not fun to watch, and he only distracts from Hal's story.

Mark Strong plays the character of Sinestro, a fellow Green Lantern from another sector who has more militaristic—and perhaps even immoral—ideas about the Corps and how it should operate. He's a hugely important character in the Green Lantern mythos, but gets nothing more than mere setup here. Furthermore, his relationship with Hal Jordan, a very important character and story point, is entirely glossed over here. Mark Strong plays the hell out of Sinestro with what little screentime he has, but it's not enough. This is a character that deserved much, much more.

Still, however, there are enjoyable things about the movie. Seeing Hal Jordan use his power ring in superheroic ways inspires a bit of childlike glee. The action, for what little is there, is fun. It's that tiny bit of enjoyability that saves Green Lantern from being terrible. And, to be fair, there's nothing in Green Lantern that's particularly offensive; it's just extremely bland.

The eight-year-old in me wants to give this movie a six out of ten. The twenty-one-year-old in me wants to give it a four. I'll split the difference. Let's just hope that if and when a sequel is made, it's better than this one.

5/10

Green Lantern: Emerald Knights

Emerald Knights is a not-sequel to the previous DCUAM Green Lantern movie, First Flight. It uses the same animation models with a new voice cast and story continuity.

This is a jumbled bag of a movie. First of all, it's an anthology film, consisting of several different stories all placed within a framing story.
The framing story, with Hal Jordan mentoring young Arisia, a new Green Lantern recruit, is passable. It's not very interesting, and feels more annoying than anything else. A straight-up series of short stories presented separately might have been more interesting than this.

A few of the short stories are enjoyable. Laira's story is decently emotional and very well-choreographed. The opening story, focusing on Avra, the First Lantern, is adequate.
Most of the stories, however, are passable at best. Additionally, a few of these stories have been told before in the comics, with a mere few pages each. Those original comic versions, which only took a mere two minutes each to read, were more compelling than these animated tales are, despite their ten-to-fifteen-minute runtimes.

Most confusing of all is the fact that Emerald Knights looks exactly like First Flight, but is clearly not in the same continuity. Seeing the same characters but with drastically different voices doesn't help, either. Some fare better than others. Nathan Fillion has a great voice for Hal Jordan, and some of the side characters, Arisia and Laira, never had major speaking roles in the first film anyway. But others, like Sinestro, Kilowog, and Abin Sur just feel bizarre with their new voices. It's incredibly distracting, and not at all enjoyable.

If you're a huge Green Lantern fan, this could be worth your time. Otherwise, skip it.

4/10

X-Men: First Class

Let me preface this by saying that I am a very big fan of the first two X-Men films (the ones directed by Bryan Singer), and to some degree, the franchise as a whole. The night I saw the first X-Men film is forever locked into my memory as a huge moment in my childhood. X2 is one of my favorite superhero movies, possibly tied for my favorite overall. I haven't been a fan of either of the X-Men films after X2 (X-Men 3 and Origins: Wolverine were, to put it mildly, garbage), but I will always love the X-Men at their best. First Class, being produced by Bryan Singer, had all the potential in the world to return to the high standards of quality seen in those earlier films—or at the very least, one would expect it to respect those films. How odd is it, then, that First Class seems in some ways to do the opposite?

X-Men: First Class is a blending-together of the scripts for two separate X-Men films, one being a Magneto/Xavier origin story and the other being a film about the "first class" of young X-Men. Apparently one of these scripts was very good and the other wasn't. The Magneto/Xavier moments in First Class are largely good, while the moments with the teen trainees are largely boring.

James MacAvoy and Michael Fassbender are absolutely perfect as the young Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr. Their performances are by far the strongest aspect of the film as a whole. Perhaps wisely, they take their cues more from the comics' portrayal of the characters than the past films', but without contradicting the film versions either. It's rather masterful, really. Their story isn't as good as their acting, but it's good enough for the most part. If there's any aspect of First Class that definitely deserves to be held up as one of the best elements of the series, it's these two characters.

Unfortunately, most of the other characters are either useless or ill-portrayed. Nearly all of the other X-Men are, at best, C-list characters that frankly don't deserve to be part of the so-called first class. Instead of classic characters like Cyclops, Jean Grey, Angel, or Iceman, we get Cyclops' kid brother (who is somehow older in this continuity), a different character coincidentally named Angel (whose most notable trait is that she's a stripper with an attitude), Banshee (an Irish kid with screaming powers who we are given zero reason to care about), and a random guy named Darwin who is almost literally in only one scene before dying. The only one of the teens that's particularly compelling is Hank McCoy/Beast, who it should be noted is the only member of the team that was actually part of the first class in the comics. His story actually works very well, even if his blue furry makeup very much does not.

The villains of the story are varied. Kevin Bacon's Sebastian Shaw is largely very good, and a rather fitting villain for the story. The presence of the demon-mutant Azazel is also rather welcome, as he fills the "super-cool silent evil henchman" role well while also referencing continuity (Azazel being Nightcrawler's father). The other villains, however, are terribly bland. Riptide's only use seems to be generating badly-rendered CG tornadoes and filling camera space next to other more important characters, while Emma Frost—a huge character from the comics—is so badly-acted and -written here that it's painful for an X-Men fan to watch. Emma in the comics (as well as in the various animated series) is a cold, commanding, brilliant, and powerful character. Emma in First Class is essentially Sebastian Shaw's whore and little else.

The biggest issue with First Class is how it handles continuity with the other films. Normally, continuity shouldn't be such a big issue, seeing as how, at the very least, the film should be able to stand on its own terms, irrelevant of how it fits with everything else. However, in this case the continuity is central to the story and can't be ignored. Many elements of First Class directly call out continuity, setting up characters and events precisely to line up with the other films. A couple of actors from past films even make cameo appearances. There is no way that this is meant to be a "reboot" of any kind; this is a prequel, plain and simple. The problem is that while it definitely wants to be a prequel, First Class outright contradicts so much continuity that the emotional ties it draws to the past films actually hurt the experience more than help it. Apparently the reason almost no classic X-Men characters were used in the film is that chronologically they would have been too young for the era in which the film is set, requiring a different set of characters. Yet other elements of the story seem not to care about things like ages, sequences of events, etc. Here's a list of some of the biggest continuity contradictions:

-In X2, the main threat revolves around the fact that Magneto helped build Cerebro and is capable of building it again from memory. In First Class, Hank builds it and Magneto knows nothing about it.
-In both X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Xavier is shown as an older man (in either the 1970s or the 1980s) able to walk, yet we see him paralyzed in 1962.
-In the first three X-Men films, it's said that Xavier and Magneto met as teenagers and spent years working together. In First Class they meet as adults, work together for a several months at most, then part ways—notably before they meet Jean Grey in the prologue of The Last Stand.
-While not technically a continuity error, it seems odd that Mystique and Charles grew up together for eighteen years as brother and sister, yet this is never referenced at any point during the other films. Given how incredibly close First Class's Mystique is portrayed to the trilogy's version of the character, it seems very ill-fitting to make her Xavier's sister. Why would Xavier repeatedly mention his close friendship with Magneto that only lasted a few months, but never reference Mystique being his adopted sibling?

Ignoring the contradictions in continuity for a moment, perhaps the thing that disappoints me most about First Class is that it handles many important parts of the X-Men mythos so poorly. As mentioned before, the "first class" of X-Men are mostly poor, useless characters that do not live up to the X-Men name. Charles and Erik don't have a long, legendary partnership; they barely know each other, really. "Magneto" is a nickname given to Erik by a bunch of rowdy partying teenagers. Emma and Riptide shouldn't have even been allowed to grace the screen.

Now, as for scoring the movie, I'm going to try to remain more objective. As an X-Men fan, it's hard to see First Class as anything but a disappointment with some high moments. However, putting aside my personal bias, it is at least a pretty decent film. The two leads and the main villain are very good, the plot is good, and production values are decent enough.

In terms of personal enjoyment, I can't give First Class anything more than a four out of ten. On a somewhat more objective scale, it probably deserves something closer to a six.

6/10

Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2 isn't bad, and it's not exactly great. It's just "decent."

When last we left our armored hero, he had gotten over his insane ego and become a more responsible person. In the span between the last film and this one, he's somehow become even more narcissistic than he ever was before.

That's essentially the crux of the entire movie: Tony Stark's ego. While there are genuine reasons for his self-destructive behavior, it still seems a bit much to swallow, and it makes Tony harder to enjoy as a character.

In the last movie, a combination of cleverly-written dialogue and well-acted improv banter between the actors kept up a certain charm. This time around, the dialogue's charm is wholly dependent upon the actor improv, and it constantly stumbles.

The plot is also rather weak. It lacks the simplicity and power of the first movie's plot, and feels like it's running in circles.

One particularly bizarre element is the introduction of two characters, Natasha Romanov (AKA Black Widow) and Nick Fury, who only show up in order to better set up their future appearances in The Avengers. Nick Fury makes a moderate amount of sense here, given that he was set up in the post-credits sequence of Iron Man, and SHIELD had played a supporting role in that film as well.

Romanov, however, is a strange twist. Scarlett Johannson plays Black Widow considerably different than her comics counterpart, lacking the distinctive Russian accent and personality. She feels more like "Scarlett Johannson in a black suit" rather than the actual Black Widow character.

Of course, for all the movie's faults, it's still decent fun. The special effects are great, the action (what little there is) is good, and the story is just decent enough to keep the audience's interest.

Iron Man 2 isn't a great film, but it's not bad either.

6/10

Kick-Ass

What would happen if someone actually tried to be a superhero?  What would happen if you just put on a costume and tried to fight crime in the real world?
Answer: you'd get your ass kicked.

This movie is one of the most violent and vulgar films I've ever seen.  There's f-bombs casually thrown into virtually every other sentence, and the violence just gets more and more extreme as the film goes on.  There's nothing vomit-inducing, but it's pretty intense.  At the same time, however, the heavier the action gets in the film, the more stylized and "comic-book" it gets, which keeps it from simply getting disgusting.  There's also some sexual humor in the first half of the movie, though it's not "extreme."  All that to say that there will be many who are completely offended by the movie, and I don't fault them for that.  Heck, I don't even recommend the movie to anyone who's not a male over the age of 18, and even then I'm selective about it.  So yeah, there's my disclaimer.  Read my review and watch the film at your own risk.

The film's story centers on Dave Lizewski (center above), an "average" and "unremarkable" teenager in every sense.  He and his fellow comic book nerd-friends simply live their lives, going from one stupid and unremarkable day to the next.
One day, Dave asks the question: why hasn't anyone actually put on a costume and tried to be a superhero?  His friends quickly give him the obvious answer: "because it's f***in' crazy, man. you'd get your ass kicked."
Later, after being the victim of a mugging, Dave decides that enough is enough.  He puts on a bright green full-body wetsuit, grabs a tactical baton, and goes out to actually fight crime in his neighborhood, under the name "Kick-Ass."  He gets beaten to the edge of death.

Somehow, this only strengthens his resolve, and he returns to his vigilante ways.  He doesn't get his ass kicked quite as badly this time, and actually manages to become somewhat of a local hero in the process.  His situation gets more and more complicated, however, when he discovers that he isn't the only costumed hero on the streets, and inadvertently gets involved in a bloody war between the father-daughter vigilante duo of "Big Daddy" and "Hit Girl" and their nemesis, crime boss Frank D'Amico.

Perhaps the most remarkable and amazing character in the film is Mindy Macready ("Hit Girl"), an eleven-year-old foul-mouthed super-assassin.  She's simultaneously adorable and jaw-droppingly fierce.  She steals every single scene, and is constantly entertaining.  Seriously.  Little girls like this are why I'm slightly wary of my ten-year-old cousin.  (I'm pretty sure she could kill me if she wanted to. o_o )

Nicolas Cage also stars in this film, and, for once, does a great job.  He's absolutely perfect as Big Daddy, who's essentially a cross between Adam West-Batman and The Punisher.
This film has made me actually like Nick Cage, which is just amazing.  I mean, it's NICOLAS CAGE.  The guy who SINGLE-HANDEDLY RUINS MOVIES.  The BANE OF SUPERHERO FILMS.  And yet, somehow, he totally rocks this role to the very core of awesomeness.

A weird switch occurs in the middle of the movie, where it goes from following the non-lethal adventures of Kick-Ass to also following the exploits of Big Daddy and Hit Girl, who unremorsefully slaughter their criminal opponents.  Once the switch is made from "Batman" to "Punisher," however, it all works wonderfully.

Kick-Ass balances comedy with action and drama to such a fine degree that it's exquisitely entertaining for those few that aren't bothered by the heavy content.  This is the first movie I've seen in a long time that I've enjoyed this much.  Even though I have some severe reservations about some of its more extreme content, I still can't help but love the film.

It really does kick ass.

(come on, you thought I wasn't going to use that pun?  It's just too easy to pass up...)

9/10

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Seven years ago, when I first saw the original X-Men film, I was hooked forever. I've now read dozens of X-men comics, seen countless episodes of X-men cartoons, bought action figures, watched all the films, and spent countless hours poring over X-men lore.
And even after all of that, I am honestly not sure what to think of this movie.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is not an X-men film, nor is it entirely a Wolverine film. It's actually a strange amalgamation of various elements that all come together into an oddly-constructed narrative.

The plot basically follows Wolverine as he goes through the various events that will lead him through his membership in the superpowered black ops unit, Team X, and end with him losing the memories of his past.

An odd amount of time in the film is actually spent on a dozen or so other mutant characters that honestly feel like "extras" in a film that should be centered solely on the title character. At times, the film feels like a video game with the way that it constantly switches from character-fight-scene to character-fight-scene.

Some characters ultimately work (though the story might have been better-told without them), while others only hold the story back. Most of them fit into the latter category.

Wolverine's biggest flaw is that it doesn't allow you to feel for the character(s). While Hugh Jackman gives it his all, the script, direction, and editing don't allow for the film to work on the personal level that it should. Also, there are many changes in Wolverine's story that seem rather odd, such as the choice to make Sabretooth, a villain seen in the first X-men film, Wolverine's half-brother. Since Wolverine has his memory wiped in this movie [not really a spoiler], it would make sense for him to not remember Sabretooth, but how exactly did Sabretooth go from a cold and calculating murderer to a blonde guy who just stares funny at people and has no memory of anything having to do with Wolverine?
BAD CONTINUITY MANAGEMENT.

Another disappointment is the fact that Logan's much-hinted-at past is shown to be a lot more boring than we thought it was. X2 had flashbacks showing a horrifying surgery scene which involved Logan escaping from a government facility, traumatized and amnesia-stricken. As it turns out, that surgery scene actually only lasted TWO MINUTES (that's in-story time, not even screen time), and he doesn't lose his memories until several days later. While the comics (and X2) showed Wolverine's past to be bloody, brutal, and horrifying, this film shows the tale to be extremely flat and devoid of deep emotion. It's no wonder that the film version of Logan is so much softer than his comics counterpart; his past is practically happy-go-lucky by comparison.

The visual effects are... hit-and-miss. There's nothing that really blows the mind of the viewer, nor is there really anything with much artistic quality. Many of the special effects are actually pretty bad.

All in all, this isn't a terrible film, but it's not amazing either. Go see it if you're a huge comics fan (if only because this will be the subject of many a geek-discussion in the months and years to come), but otherwise wait until the DVD, then NetFlix it.

EDIT:
As I have recently learned, if you are a female, this film apparently is much, MUCH more enjoyable, and you should add another five points to the below score. (thanks, Hugh Jackman). :P

4/10

Hulk Vs

This direct-to-DVD feature is actually two films--Hulk vs Thor and Hulk vs Wolverine--on one disc. However, unlike its deceptively simplistic title, these two animated shorts are not simple fighting matches; they are complete stories which both feature the Hulk as the main antagonist.


Hulk Vs Thor:
This short film is slightly longer than its Wolverine-centered counterpart. Additionally, the story is far more straightforward and epic. This tale is a mythological epic that literally takes the heroes and villains to Hell and back, all with a grand style befitting of its source material.

Everything in this animated Asgard glows with a supernatural light and is sculpted with an angelic grace. This truly feels like a supernatural realm, and is not easily confused with our world.


Thor himself is well-designed, not looking too chunky or overly feminine. He looks, sounds, and moves exactly as he should.


The story is simple, yet takes several turns. At the start, Hulk vs Thor deals with Thor's evil half-brother, Loki, attempting to use the Hulk as a weapon against Asgard. Of course, the Hulk is a monster that cannot be controlled, and apocalyptic chaos ensues.

Bruce Banner's character is given a surprising amount of depth in this story, with the importance of the Hulk/Banner duality in the spotlight. A twist in the plot allows for a deep look at what makes Bruce Banner a hero, something that is rarely--if ever--seen in his other stories.

This tale deals with themes of life, death, love, and self-sacrifice. The epic scale of Thor vs Hulk is remarkable, especially considering its short 45-minute length.


The animation is practically flawless, mixing artistic flair with fluid-yet-brutal motion. I do wonder, however, at the apparent lack of on-screen blood. It seems strange that certain scenes in Hulk vs Thor that show on-screen sword wounds are oddly devoid of the animated blood that permeated Hulk vs Wolverine. After all, it's not as if the film was going to get a rating below PG-13 anyway. Perhaps this film was not originally meant to be coupled with the grittier Wolverine story? Perhaps Marvel Studios wants to be able to air this film on television? In any case, the fact that the story takes place in a magical land covers up for any perceived lack of realism.


All in all, the film is great at what it is: a 45-minute superhero action/drama. Though it may not stand up as high as many of DC comics' animated movies, it's definitely a great feature that fans of action, comic books, mythology, or animation in general can enjoy.


8/10.


_____



Hulk vs Wolverine

Hulk vs Wolverine trades drama for carnage-filled fun. I was very, very surprised at the level of violence in this film. On-screen characters are dismembered and disemboweled. However, this is not a simple carnage-fest; there is in fact a story here.

This story takes place before Wolverine joins with the X-men, but after he has escaped from the Weapon X science lab. The actual narrative is simple: the government wants Wolverine to track down and possibly kill the Hulk, who has apparently gone on a rampage. However, Wolverine's old Weapon X teammates have special plans, both for Bruce Banner and Logan himself.


One thing that's immediately obvious is that the character designs are a bit different in this film than in Hulk vs Thor. While the designs in Thor were elegant-yet-strong, the characters here have a "clunkier" feeling. It's not necessarily a bad thing, as it reinforces the gritty tone of the story, but I would have appreciated Wolverine looking a little less goofy.


On that note, however, Wolverine is characterized pretty perfectly, just as Thor was. Voiced by the excellent actor who also voices Logan in Wolverine and the X-Men, Wolverine's voice has the perfect amount of grit.


The Hulk/Wolverine fight is one of the best and most brutal fights I have ever seen in animation. It's bloody, tense, and genuinely surprising.

The real story kicks into gear, however, when the Weapon X team shows up.

From left to right: Deadpool, Omega Red, Lady Deathstrike, Sabretooth

The villains of Weapon X are a lot of fun to watch, but while Omega Red, Deathstryke, and Sabretooth are mostly just out for Wolverine's blood, Deadpool is genuinely funny. His morbid humor is both slightly disgusting and completely hilarious. It's the first time he's ever been seen in animation, and it's nice. It'll be great to see him return in Marvel's future stories.


If there is any real flaw with Hulk vs Wolverine, it's that the story is practically non-existent. It's lots of fun, but after seeing Thor's deep and meaningful development on several different characters, Wolverine is just a bloody thrillride. However, as a bloody thrillride, it's awesome.


7/10.


________


All in all, this is a really great DVD movie. It's thoroughly enjoyable, and has some of the best action animation on this side of the Pacific Ocean. The DVD has some great commentaries that highlight the little details, making the experience for comics fans that much better.

Overall grade:
7.5/10

Watchmen

The twelve-issue comic maxi-series Watchmen was published in 1986, and has now become recognized as one of the top 100 novels of the 20th century. Its deep study of the psychological reasoning behind superheroic characters has influenced every facet of the comic-book industry. The story is gritty, realistic, and shockingly dark at times. It is not a tale for children, as its content is entirely too mature.
Many had previously (and infamously) called Watchmen "unfilmable," citing its overly complicated narrative and nonlinear storytelling. Zach Snyder, director of this 2009 film, has now proven them wrong.

For those who don't know, Watchmen is set in an alternate 1985, where costumed vigilantes exist in the real world. With one major exception, none of the so-called "heroes" have superpowers, and many of them are slightly insane. The presence of these vigilantes has completely changed the world, with the U.S. winning the Vietnam War and the subsequent events of the Cold War becoming even more heated. In the present time of Watchmen, the "doomsday clock" stands at five minutes to "midnight," when nuclear devastation will be upon the world. The main plot of Watchmen revolves around a core group of "heroes," complete with lengthy individual flashbacks. When one of these heroes is murdered, a chain of events is set in motion that threatens millions of lives.

Fans of the novel may be dissatisfied with certain alterations to the original story. However, the changes all work in the end. Several alterations are actually superior to the original tale.

Zach Snyder will forever go down in history as the one man with the ability to adapt comics into motion picture form while still maintaining their original integrity. Watchmen practically uses the original novel's panels as storyboards, yet still somehow makes them work in motion. This may be the single most visually well-done film I have ever seen.

Parents must take note: This is not a film for children. Heck, it may not be a film for you. There are at least two notable sex scenes in the film, though only one of them was very graphic. There was also quite a bit of nudity in the film, but only once was it ever used in an unnecessary way. Curses are thrown about like lawn darts, though never without reason. The violence is brutal and bloody. When a younger friend of mine asked me if I thought her parents might allow her to see the film, I replied, "Nope. Your daddy would drag you out of the theater. Too many broken bones and naked people."

Watchmen was always a tale of moral ambiguity, and this film is very accurate to its source material. This is not a simple film in which the characters are identified as "good" or "evil." This is a story about realistic human characters with real human flaws. Those looking for a superhero film will be disappointed: Watchmen is no such thing.

This film is an elaborate series of stunningly beautiful musical montages. Watching Watchmen is like eating New York cheesecake drizzled with strawberry glaze. I found myself wanting to cheer at the action scenes, which are overly stylish, yet kinetic and real enough to seem plausible. Set to electric guitar rock combined with traditional superheroic orchestral fare, the action in this film makes the men in the audience feel like eight-year-old boys again (provided that the on-screen bone breaks and cracked spines don't make them vomit)

Sadly, Watchmen does have its narrative flaws. Even the original novel felt lacking, as though the reader was only privy to short glimpses into the lives of these complex characters. This film has the same problem, but does make up for it somewhat with its highly enjoyable visuals.

All in all, Watchmen is not a perfect film, but is still very good, acting as the new standard for comic book adaptations.

8/10

Punisher: War Zone

This movie is probably the most unrelentingly violent 103 minutes of imagery that I have ever seen.
It
Is
AWESOME.

For those who don't know the story or the character, let me break it down for you: Frank Castle is a man whose wife and child are brutally murdered by the mob. Having Special Forces experience, Castle becomes a vigilante, "The Punisher," hunting down and brutally killing not only those responsible for his family's murder, but mob bosses and criminals as a whole. The police have a love/hate relationship with The Punisher, as he technically commits murder, yet also takes down high-class mob bosses that the police can't get in jail.

This film is in no way connected to the 2004 film The Punisher, starring Thomas Jane. While that film was an attempt at a more melancholic, sorrow-driven story, it ultimately drowned in its own boredom and lack of depth or fun. Punisher: War Zone is a reboot of the film franchise, and forgoes the ill-fitting poetry of the first film in lieu of straightforward, brutal action.

Punisher: War Zone has a relatively simple plot. It begins when The Punisher, on one of his crime-boss-killing-sprees, murders Nicky Donatelli—not initially realizing that Donatelli is actually working undercover for the FBI. Donatelli is posthumously revealed to have been an FBI agent, thus leaving his wife and daughter alone and defenseless against the vengeful mob. At the same time, Castle severely disfigures and humiliates a mob leader, thus creating a new psychopath who is hell-bent on revenge against both the Punisher and the Donatelli family. From a filmmaking perspective, this is essentially just a reason for the Punisher to deal out bullet-laden justice to the skulls of the corrupt.

In this film, I saw heads being punched, shot, stabbed, cut up, sliced off, broken off, blown up, blown apart (yes, there is a difference), blown off, and punched in. It's basically the ultimate guy movie. I can't recommend it to any females, however. It's essentially a crazy, action-laden crime war film. The plot isn't anything special, but this is one rare film where the sheer insanity of what's happening on-screen outdoes what's written in the script. If you're a male above the age of 17, GO SEE THIS MOVIE.

8/10