Ghost Rider (2007).

Review #1261: Ghost Rider.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Johnny Blaze / Ghost Rider), Eva Mendes (Roxanne Simpson), Wes Bentley (Blackheart / Legion), Sam Elliott (Carter Slade / Caretaker), Donal Logue (Mack), Peter Fonda (Mephistopheles), Brett Cullen (Barton Blaze), David Roberts (Captain Jack Dolan), Laurence Breuls (Gressil), Daniel Frederiksen (Wallow), and Mathew Wilkinson (Abigor) Directed by Mark Steven Johnson (#443 - Daredevil)

Review: 
What can you really say about something like this? If you've seen one superhero film, does it mean you've really seen them all? With the case of a film like this based on a Marvel comic character of the same name (created by Roy Thomas, Gary Friedrich, Mike Ploog that made its first appearance in 1972 - an oddly appropriate decade for a character like this), I really did have a curiosity to see exactly what was going to happen with a film about a guy who turns into a leather-clad flaming skeleton on a bike because he sold his soul to a certain individual. The execution, needless to say, does not exactly come off well enough to make this a solid winner. It seems to strive for a over-the-top kind of action glitz that films like Blade (1998) did with its outlandish premise, but it flails around with awkwardness that is more akin to other comic book films of its ilk like Fantastic Four (2005) or even Johnson's previous work with Daredevil. In going for a supernatural kind of comic book film with tinges of a Western and Horror, the resulting concoction is much like being told a long and winding story by someone hanging around your friends that you accidentally started: ridiculous and messy while having you learning what a waste of time looks like. Is there really a way to make a movie about a bounty hunter for the wicked seem involving? Perhaps there is a way, but this is really not the best way to make it happen. If I don't care about the stakes of what is going on with its main mystical plot or what is being fought for (some sort of evil contract that can't fall into the wrong hands because...reasons), then what chance does the cast have in making this stuff come alive?

Cage, who evidently lobbied hard to portray this character, surely does seem like he wants to bring eccentric charm to a Evel Knievel/growly skull man kind of guy. He does seem hammy, but at least he seems like he really wants to be there, even if he can't quite show much chemistry with Mendes, who seems as interested in this material in the same way one is interested in looking at the painter paint one side of the wall. Nobody has a completely terrible performance, but nobody really pulls off a show-stopper kind of fun time either. If only one could say much about Bentley and his adversarial role more than a sentence: his character is an undeveloped joke that is too laughably terrible to be taken seriously as a threat, with Bentley looking more and more like he picked the wrong film in each scene. Elliott is likely the one actor who comes off without much ridicule, in part because one feels the need to see him in more scenes besides being the deliverer of exposition (whether through his rich voice or not) who leaves before the climax can start (complete with a sequence with him on a horse and Cage on a bike that ends with him leaving). There is a certain curiosity to seeing Fonda on screen, wondering how he would play a man of the darkness, which is quickly extinguished by the fact that you don't see him enough. If one wanted to use an analogy, he is essentially three pieces short of a whole devil's food cake, if it were made out of some sort of weird cardboard. The film ultimately feels flabby with where it wants to really go with its story (also done by Johnson) and tone. The action sequences seem more something you have to struggle to take seriously, especially when it comes to its climax, where the stakes have never felt so mild. Maybe this could have been a tongue-in-cheek film, or a self-serious one that really wanted to be supernatural with some action thrown in. Instead, you get a film that doesn't really please anyone unless you need to kill two hours (110 minutes for the original cut and 123 for the extended cut because of course there is more) and don't have one of the other comic book films laying around. What kind of sentence can really close such a mediocre piece of dreck like this. Honestly, I have just six words: Ghost Rider is a flaming disaster.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Shazam!

Review #1207: Shazam!

Cast: 
Asher Angel (Billy Batson), Zachary Levi (Shazam), Mark Strong (Dr. Thaddeus Sivana), Jack Dylan Grazer (Freddy Freeman), Djimon Hounsou (Wizard), Faithe Herman (Darla Dudley), Grace Fulton (Mary Bromfield), Ian Chen (Eugene Choi), Jovan Armand (Pedro Peña), Marta Milans (Rosa Vasquez), Cooper Andrews (Victor Vasquez), and John Glover (Mr. Sivana), with Adam Brody (Super Hero Freddy), Meagan Good (Super Hero Darla), Michelle Borth (Super Hero Mary), Ross Butler (Super Hero Eugene), and D. J. Cotrona (Super Hero Pedro) Directed by David F. Sandberg.

Review: 
Time for a bit of story time, since I felt it seemed interesting enough in regards to Shazam and his history.

Shazam! certainly had a unique path to entering the worlds of comic books and film. The success of heroes such as Superman and Batman in their respective line of comics inspired Fawcett Comics to try and make their own respective hero, with Captain Marvel being created in 1939. Creators Bill Parker and C. C. Beck wanted to deliver a hero that would rely on folk-tales and myths more than pulp - Shazam after all is an acronym for the six figures who gave power to the hero originally known as Captain Marvel: Solomon, Hercules, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles, and Mercury. In 1941, Republic Pictures released the film serial Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941), becoming the first film depiction of a superhero. While future films did not follow in the next seven decades, a television series was done in 1974 involving Filmation. It should be noted that DC Comics did not find the hero to be particularly original, filing lawsuits against both Fawcett Comics and Republic Pictures for copyright infringement in 1941 due to what they saw as similarities between Superman and Captain Marvel. There were verdicts and appeals that followed over the next decade, but Fawcett eventually gave up publishing the hero in 1953, fourteen years after the character's birth. In 1972, DC brought back the property; by this point, Marvel had acquired the trademark and started their own series of Captain Marvel comic books. The origin that the film utilizes for Batson is from more recent publications (as opposed to the newsboy sleeping in a subway station of the original) while also having inspiration from Big (1988). In any case, it is obvious fairly quickly that this is aiming for light charm in a year surrounded by heroes and occasional origin stories.

The obvious thing to say is that this is a wonderful hero film. It doesn't fall into the trap of needing high stakes or overwrought drama but instead relies on charm and humor along with a mostly effective story headlined by Angel, Levi, and Strong. Angel is worthy enough for us to want to follow along with on his path of discovery, never seeming too distant or out-of-touch for us to care about - in essence, he's a kid we can watch grow just as the movie does. Levi has the task of acting as a kid in an adult's body (complete with a whole suit and such), and he rolls with it with ease, having as much fun as one probably would have when trying to find who they are beneath a flashy suit and self promotion. Strong is just as adept in serving as the arch nemesis in part because he seems quite creepy enough to pull his scheme to completion.  He plays the bitter yet brilliant foe with relish that makes one yearn for more from him. Grazer works just fine, serving as the one to play a bit of second fiddle "manager" to Angel that helps deliver some chuckles, such as when he and Levi both realize his immunity to bullets and proceed to want to get the would-be robbers to do it again on camera, but now targeted on the face. Hounsou does just fine with his purpose of crackling the plot along with some magic with a voice fit for a wise tiring wizard. The other members of the cast aren't given too much to really do until the climax, but nobody sticks out as a deterrent to the enjoyment, occasionally serving for a chuckle. The film spends the chunk of its first half to try and give story to both its lead character and villain. Both have a key choice they had to make as children and where they go from there. It carefully balances its act to try and not tire patience prior to the arrival of its main card of its title hero. It achieves the goals it sets out to do by not stretching itself too thin with too many subplots or characters and keeps things on a routine if not comfortable level. The scenes involving Shazam finding his powers can certainly give a jolt of astonishment. I also found the Sins to be pretty interesting to look at, and they do seem creepy enough without making the movie seem completely confused on where it is going. Watching enough of these type of films makes some of the film's turns for its resolutions come off as more familiar and expected than probably imagined, but at least there isn't anything here that tries to do a take off of ill-advised narrative decisions. The climax serves the film decently in getting some thrills and chuckles without becoming too weighted down in trying to linger for too long, although a 132 minute run-time perhaps could have been trimmed a bit. In any case, the best that can be said for this film is that it is a wildly entertaining superhero film, just as well to watch alongside other features such as Wonder Woman (2017) or Aquaman (2018) that sticks out for its abundance of light charm and energy. I certainly look forward to any future installments involving this character, that is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Captain Marvel.

Review #1200: Captain Marvel.

Cast: 
Brie Larson (Carol Danvers / Vers / Captain Marvel), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Ben Mendelsohn (Talos / Keller), Djimon Hounsou (Korath), Lee Pace (Ronan the Accuser), Lashana Lynch (Maria Rambeau), Gemma Chan (Minn-Erva), Annette Bening (Supreme Intelligence / Mar-Vell / Dr. Wendy Lawson), Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson), and Jude Law (Yon-Rogg) Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck.

Review: 
There have now been 21 films produced by Marvel Studios that is part of their cinematic universe, for which they have managed to set stages for the rise of numerous heroes for the past decade. Just as the era seems to possibly reach its peak with the final Avengers film comes another hero to join the fray, barely a month before said release. The film has certainly taken its time to get to the finish line, moving from an initial script done in 2013 to eventually enlisting a director/writer duo in Fleck and Boden in 2017, who had previously done films such as Mississippi Grind (2015) along with work on television programs. How many times can one make a superhero origin movie full of effects and action held together through a formula that seems as familiar as ever? I find myself liking these type of films just fine, but there is likely a point where the product doesn't resonate as entertainment, and it will likely be when the story and themes can't be held up from its main hero, when one just doesn't care about the stakes. I don't usually re-watch films often, and I can't particularly say that I really go back to these comic book films too much either (regardless of what brand is behind it). Perhaps it would be best to say that while I did find the film to be just fine, I would hope that a future installment manages to give its lead character a bit more conflict, particularly with its main threat.

Granted, there is plenty of galactic action to go around, but it doesn't have as many compelling levels as it probably should. There isn't a bad performance in the bunch, with Larson, Jackson, and Mendelsohn being keys to giving the film a steady balance. Larson does seem at first to be like a blank slate to fill details in gradually, which goes okay. As is the case with most heroes, it is nice to see her put a suit on and beat some enemies, even if the story that surrounds her is just alright for the course. It is nice to see Jackson (albeit with some digitally de-ageing that takes some time to get used to) deliver some enjoyment and a few laughs in a part that feels just fine for a buddy cop movie. Mendelsohn is also fairly amusing to stick around with, particularly when in his human disguise. The other members of the cast are okay, although they don't feel too particularly developed with much to do, such as Law or Bening. At least the 90s references are amusing without being obnoxiously self-aware. Comparing the film to more recent films of its ilk (such as Wonder Woman or Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, for example) does tend to make the film seem a bit average. It is surprising to see how many films can persist on in showing people with their newly found heroic powers and the responsibility that comes with it - some do better with showing conflict and adventure than others. The film takes its 124 minute run-time and runs just fine with showing spectacle while trying to make sure its story has a few connections for its audiences without gasping for relevance, which delivers decent results. It may not be unique with its motivations (or its character types), but it sure pushes itself amiably. This one will check the boxes for people already in line for these kind of movies, and while it may not be as interesting as it could have been (in terms of its story and pace), it is at least something you can take without many regrets.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Blade II.

Review #1188: Blade II.

Cast: 
Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks/Blade), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Ron Perlman (Dieter Reinhardt), Leonor Varela (Nyssa Damaskinos), Norman Reedus (Scud), Thomas Kretschmann (Eli Damaskinos), Karel Roden (Karel Kounen), Luke Goss (Jared Nomak), Matt Schulze (Chupa), Danny John-Jules (Asad), Donnie Yen (Snowman), Marit Velle Kile (Verlaine), Darren "Daz" Crawford (Lighthammer), Tony Curran (Priest), and Santiago Segura (Rush) Directed by Guillermo del Toro (#425 - Pacific Rim and #1061 - The Shape of Water)

Review: 
The cheapest way I think I could describe the film would be that if you liked the first film, you'll be fine with the sequel. It isn't wrong, however. It's a movie that has plenty of loud action, ridiculous moments, and a continuing winning combo of Snipes and Kristofferson. Its plot and some of its characters may be a bit shaky, but in the long run there is just enough here to make something worth a watch for entertainment. It isn't a particularly great comic book film, but it tries to have a balance of action and horror that makes it stick out a bit, not being too much of a copy from its predecessor, which was also written by David S. Goyer. I can't really say it is a better film, in part because of the story, which is okay in getting to its spectacle parts but sometimes ridiculous when giving deep thought to some of its motivations. The initial idea of the film (which sounds like Blade crossed with the Dirty Dozen but with vampires that call themselves the Bloodpack) is a curious one, although it is amusing in execution, since if this so-called pack were trained to supposedly terminate Blade at some point in time, I imagine they would've probably been beaten senseless in less than a hour. Obviously the movie doesn't reply on the ability of this pack to be able to beat Blade, but their lack of characterization besides Perlman and Varela, with the others feeling like fodder. Even though they do fine jobs, they are characters who can sometimes feel one-note, with the former being a bully with watchable qualities and the latter being okay but not invoking as much interest when it comes time to the plot or when with Snipes. Reedus is okay and charming, and Kretschmann is occasionally creepy, but these are cursory moments. Even Goss can't really deliver too much as a villain, perhaps because he doesn't really have much to say (which doesn't help when compared to Stephen Dorff and his villain from the original), and the Reapers (as interesting as they look) seem a bit muddled when compared to Blade; the action is fine and dandy, but after a while the film can't quite find a way to wring itself to anything other than just going through the motions between going from one dialogue piece to another before an action sequence comes in. At least it doesn't feel like an endless cutscene (although the CGI can be a bit dodgy sometimes). The climax is alright for spectacle, although it doesn't really have too many surprises. The film suffers a bit when comparing it to the first film, which felt more flexible with balancing its action and mythology without too much trouble. As okay as the film is with its execution, it still invites curiosity for anyone looking for some vampire action horror that can deliver in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Special Note for 2019 only: In an error best described as "counting sheep wrong", the review count for Movie Night had been miscounted since review #1168, which was Firewall (2006). Somehow, it was never properly cataloged into my records (which I keep for things such as ratings of each film, release year, etc), while the reviews that followed were. The numbering was done correctly for #1169 (About Schmidt), but the next review of Futureworld was mislabeled as #1169 instead of the correct #1170. This means that the reviews that followed up to now were the wrong number. The review numbers have been corrected and things are fixed, but I wanted to make sure that there is no confusion. Enjoy.

Aquaman.

Review #1175: Aquaman.

Cast: 
Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Amber Heard (Mera), Willem Dafoe (Nuidis Vulko), Patrick Wilson (King Orm), Dolph Lundgren (King Nereus), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (David Kane / Black Manta), Nicole Kidman (Atlanna), Temuera Morrison (Tom Curry), Ludi Lin (Captain Murk), Michael Beach (Jesse Kane), and Randall Park (Dr. Stephen Shin) Directed by James Wan.

Review: 
I will admit that I did have mild expectations for Aquaman, much in the same way that I try to hold for most superhero films, where I hope for some fine entertainment along with at least some sort of storytelling or substance. It isn't an exceptional film by any means, but it does have plenty of entertainment value and a fair bit of charm to make a solid feature with enough spirit of adventure to prevail. It fits squarely in the middle with other superhero films in recent years, being just as fine as other features such as Black Panther (2018) for example but also being particularly better made than other films adapted from DC Comics such as Justice League (2017). Honestly, the best way to make a superhero film is to just have fun with the material while not making a mockery out of what makes a hero what they are, while having interesting secondary characters to go with it. In that regard, Momoa is up to the task handily enough, giving plenty of dignity and charm while handling himself just fine for the action sequences. Heard does fine with her role, although the chemistry between her and Momoa isn't too noteworthy. The others in the cast stand to do their parts just fine, although having two villains in Wilson and Abdul-Mateen II seems a bit much. Lundgren seems to be having fun with his kingly role at least. The dialogue certainly doesn't help too much with giving these characters too much life, having more splashes of delivering exposition; in that case it is no wonder the film runs at 143 minutes, which can feel a bit long at times, although at least the action scenes do help to cover some of the slack. The film also has time for humor amidst the spectacle - where else can one see an octopus do a drum solo? Undeniably, the film hinges quite a bit on the execution of its effects, since a majority of the movie takes place underwater. For the most part, it looks fairly convincing, and I can only imagine the effort it took to make the actors seem like they were in water. The action works well, not being too jerky or blurry for the eyes. The climax is fine and dandy. The film has a bunch of people pulling the strings behind its execution in writing, with David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall being behind the screenplay while Geoff Johns, Wan, and Will Beall are credited with doing the story for the film. On the whole, this proved to be a good fashioned crowd-pleaser kind of movie, doing what it aspires to do without too many bumps. The film works more often than not in trying to give its main hero a place for the big screen through good fun and a decently patched story that allows the possibility for more with this character that can only go up from here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Crow (1994).

Review #1160: The Crow.

Cast: 
Brandon Lee (Eric Draven/The Crow), Michael Wincott (Top Dollar), Ernie Hudson (Sergeant Albrecht), Rochelle Davis (Sarah), Bai Ling (Myca), David Patrick Kelly (T-Bird), Angel David (Skank), Jon Polito (Gideon), Tony Todd (Grange), Sofia Shinas (Shelly Webster), Michael Massee (Funboy), Laurence Mason (Tin-Tin), and Anna Levine (Darla) Directed by Alex Proyas (#086 - I, Robot)

Review: 
The Crow is based off a 1989 superhero comic book series of the same name created by James O'Barr, which soon became an underground success. Tasked with writing the screenplay adaptation is John Shirley and David J. Schow, who were each known for their work on writing novels (cyberpunk and splatter-punk horror, respectively), with un-credited rewrites being done due to the tragic accidental death of Lee on March 31, 1993, which occurred a few days before production was set to end. Narration (along with a few new scenes) was added to accompany stand-in actors (such as Chad Stahelski) and CGI digital superimposition. The resulting product is a movie that is pretty entertaining, mostly due to its style and some fair performances, starting with Lee (in his fifth and final appearance in a film). He shows a good deal of charm and compelling nature (complete with a nice-looking costume) that dominates the screen for most of its 102 minute run-time. Wincott, although not having as much time to make up much of a villainous presence, proves entertaining enough. Hudson is enjoyable in pulling some watch-ability out of the cop role without feeling hollow, having a bit of humor to him. Davis does a fine job as well, going along well with Lee and Hudson. Although the supporting cast of adversaries are a bit routine, they aren't detrimental to the film's credit. The climax (complete with rain, naturally) is satisfactory to help cap the film, having a decent showdown that tries to make the final result a little less than easily predictable (for a vigilante hero, anyway), which works okay to a point. After all, this is a movie with a guy back from the dead who is accompanied by a crow that flies around, but at least there isn't some sort of shoehorned explanation of the origins of the title hero. The film is dark and moody with its approach, particularly with its cinematography by Dariusz Wolski that sure makes the setting come to life with plenty of fine shots to look at, reminding me of Batman (1989) and Blade Runner (1982). The film doesn't have too much in the way of a great story at times, and it can fall prey to some cliches, but I found that there are enough enjoyable moments to make this a entertaining experience. It makes for a fine vigilante film that has some fine action sequences to accompany a movie that certainly earns a cult following and at least one watch for people curious for some style and action.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Review #1108: Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Cast: 
Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne / Wasp), Michael Peña (Luis), Walton Goggins (Sonny Burch), Hannah John-Kamen (Ava Starr / Ghost), Michelle Pfeiffer (Janet van Dyne), Laurence Fishburne (Bill Foster), Michael Douglas (Hank Pym), Bobby Cannavale (Jim Paxton), Judy Greer (Maggie), Tip "T.I." Harris (Dave), David Dastmalchian (Kurt), Abby Ryder Fortson (Cassie), and Randall Park (Jimmy Woo) Directed by Peyton Reed (#728 - Ant-Man and #789 - The Break-Up)

Review: 
Three years ago, Ant-Man came onto the screen with a bit of production struggle but also a dynamic cast, with the final result being something that I described as one that "has fun with itself and its premise", which seems easy to still say today. With the sequel, the fear of staleness in terms of its charm and action is avoided, with a good majority of the credit being attributable to the cast, particularly Rudd and Lilly. Rudd (who is listed as one of the five co-writers of the film)does a fine job once again, having a degree of humility and amusement that is always watchable on-screen, whether when dealing with aspects of family or the main plot as a whole, and his moments with Forston are pretty neat. Lilly does fine with making her character an engaging one to see through that brims with confidence and energy (signified during her action sequences) that balances well with Rudd. If you enjoyed the trio of Peña-Canavale-T.I from the previous film, you will get a few laughs from them, particularly from Peña, and they help keep the flow of the movie go fine at times, even if they aren't as the forefront of the movie like with before. Goggins is fine, even if his adversary role is a bit standard for some tastes. John-Kamen does fine with her adversary role in showing a degree of menace but also a degree of vulnerability, and it is refreshing in some way to have one of these Marvel movies to not have a villain and their arc play out in the routine way like other films, and she is just as interesting to watch as the villain (and his arc) from the earlier one, with Fishburne being an acceptable accomplice in her sequences. Her sequences involving her power and the action scenes are also fairly well-done. Douglas is also interesting to see again, and Pfeiffer proves refreshing in her brief time on screen. The effects are to the standard that you would likely expect from these comic book films, with the highlight being the Quantum Realm sequences, and the parts involving size also prove acceptable. The plot moves itself at a fine pace, juggling itself handily without becoming too routine or having the stakes present themselves to be too low (or improbably high). It's a riveting experience that never wears out its welcome even at 118 minutes. On the whole, this is a fairly nice crowd-pleaser kind of film that improves itself from the original in small but crucial ways that will satisfy audiences looking for some neat fun.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Deadpool 2.

Review #1087: Deadpool 2.

Cast: 
Ryan Reynolds (Wade Wilson / Deadpool), Josh Brolin (Cable), Morena Baccarin (Vanessa), Julian Dennison (Russell Collins / Firefist), Zazie Beetz (Domino), T.J. Miller (Weasel), Brianna Hildebrand (Negasonic Teenage Warhead), Jack Kesy (Black Tom Cassidy), Stefan Kapičić (Colossus), Leslie Uggams (Blind Al), Karan Soni (Dopinder), Terry Crews (Bedlam), Lewis Tan (Shatterstar), Bill Skarsgård (Zeitgeist), Rob Delaney (Peter) and Brad Pitt (Vanisher) Directed by David Leitch (#905 - John Wick and #978 - Atomic Blonde)

Review: 
Deadpool (#779) was certainly an interesting experience, particularly in its pace and its jokes, with Reynolds being a key highlight that certainly proved to be amusing enough to make a sequel easily possible. As described by Reynolds himself, "The first movie is a love story masquerading as a comic-book movie, and this one is kind of a family film masquerading as a comic-book film again." The best thing I can say about this movie is that it succeeds at being good entertainment, particularly by being a fine follow-up to the previous one without just being a "greatest hits" type of film. At 119 minutes, it is slightly longer in length than the first movie (which was 108), but it thankfully doesn't feel bloated, in part because of how fun it is with its cast and action.

Reynolds sells the part just as well (if not better) as he did in the original, having a charm to him that still manages to feel fresh and involving, which generates a good deal of the laughs. Brolin does a fine job, selling this steely role with competency and a fair sense of timing to elevate material that could've been generic in lesser hands. Dennison does a fine job, showing a fair deal of vulnerability and angst that works for his plot thread, selling it well when paired with Reynolds. Beetz does a pretty good job, being fairly charming and good with timing in a movie filled with quick zingers and nearly as quick action sequences. The returning cast-mates from the original (Baccarin, Miller, Hildebrand, Kapičić, Uggams, Soni) aren't as prominent this time around, although they do contribute to a few amusing moments. With the numerous meta gags and things that the film likes to throw at the viewer, one could be tempted to wonder if Deadpool 2 nearly goes off the deep end with trying to be fun. While I find that there are times that the movie doesn't quite sell itself too handily (applying in some part to the first half), there are an abundant amount of moments that click to pull it off. While the film doesn't really have much of a villain, there is enough in its story pursuit that makes it click decently. The movie has an adequate emotional core to where you can be reasonably be invested in what it's selling, especially because the cast looks like they're having fun while doing so while feeling believable enough to seem useful. The action sequences are pulled off pretty well, having an execution to them that maneuvers itself with good motion that you'd expect. It isn't as good as the first film, but there is enough fun and amusement along with some structure to make for a relatively satisfying sequel, and I can't wait to see what will happen next with these characters.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Infinity War.

Review #1079: Avengers: Infinity War.

Cast: 
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Paul Bettany (Vision), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Sebastian Stan (James "Bucky" Barnes / Winter Soldier), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Peter Dinklage (Eitri), Benedict Wong (Wong), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Benicio del Toro (Taneleer Tivan / The Collector), Josh Brolin (Thanos), and Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier and #796 - Captain America: Civil War)

Review: 
On May 2, 2008, Iron Man (#135) was released into theaters, being the first film in what has become known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has served to try and tell stories of entertainment with adaptations of characters from all-throughout its numerous comic book series. Eighteen films later, here we are with Avengers: Infinity War, picking up plot points from numerous movies such as the first two Avengers installments (#312 and #706) but also Guardians of the Galaxy (#626 and #932) and Doctor Strange (#874) among others. It is obvious to see the amount of effort (and money) utilized to try and make something that achieves its goal of great spectacle. As such, the film is successful in being good entertainment. While it can be argued that it may be a bit overstuffed for its own good (in numerous categories), it will ultimately prove satisfying for people invested in what it is trying to showcase, as is the case for this series in other films, which have had their own range of success. It might not go down as the best in this series or even the best comic book film ever, but it will serve as solid joyfulness for its viewers.

This is a film with a large scale and large importance to what matters, but it is the parts involving its main villain that ultimately tie the film best. For a series that likes to show off its heroes and their abilities, their depiction of villains have generally not always been their highlight, but I think that it works here because of the conviction taken to give Brolin's character a level of importance and depth, which Brolin does a good job in making entertaining and prime for what you would expect. The film manages to take what could've been unwieldy with having such a large cast and having to balance each out and makes it work just enough to keep its plots going with enough energy and commitment. It never spends too much time on one thing without sacrificing the other parts of the plot to its detriment. If you have spent time watching these characters (or care about them), you will find a good deal to appreciate in seeing certain people interact with each other, such as Downey and Cumberbatch, or Hemsworth and Cooper, filled with its moments of fun quips. The film can't be faulted for being murky with its effects or its costume look since it manages to not blur the line between wonderful and cut-scene. The action sequences are executed as you'd expect, accompanying the film with good craft and energy. The film and its impact will differ from person to person, but I found the film to be at the very least successful with telling its story without becoming a crammed exercise in over-indulgence, but I can't say that I am a staunch defender of what it does. At 149 minutes, it may prove a bit of overkill for some while being just the right kind of length for others in the mood for what it tries to sell. Its climax is fairly satisfactory, with enough pull and punch to make something worth going home to without feeling cheated or feeling sick.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Superman Returns.

Review #1077: Superman Returns.

Cast: 
Brandon Routh (Clark Kent / Superman), Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane), Kevin Spacey (Lex Luthor), James Marsden (Richard White), Parker Posey (Kitty Kowalski), Frank Langella (Perry White), Sam Huntington (Jimmy Olsen), Eva Marie Saint (Martha Kent), Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Kal Penn (Stanford), and Tristan Lake Leabu (Jason White) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men, #010 - X2, and #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past)

Review: 
In honor of the 80th anniversary of Superman's debut in Action Comics #1, I figured that this would be the best time to finally cover this movie. I hope you enjoy this review, which I didn't try to stretch too long.

In 1978, Superman (#547) graced the big screen with an epic scale that had a collection of fine actors and a look that still manages to shine through after four decades, with this serving as a pioneer for comic book films. The sequel (#785) continued the good fortune of scope and a bit of amusement, having enough charm and magic to work, even if it was not as good as the first one. The two films that followed (#786 & #787) were terrible in their own right, having ridiculous plots along with bad execution and substance, and it would be nineteen years until Superman returned to the big screen. The film was a mild success at the box office, but it would be seven years before a new Superman film was released, which resorted to being an origin story. This film ignores the latter two films in an attempt to channel the energy of the first two films and make for great entertainment. Does it succeed?

I will first state that on the surface it is certainly an interesting idea to try and emulate the first two Reeve films, as some sort of attempt to pass the torch from the first two films onto this. After all, footage of Marlon Brando from the first film (with some help from some CGI) is utilized in the film, with John Ottman's music being a homage to the music from John Williams from the first one. For all the attempts of the film to follow the same beats, the best thing that can be said for Superman Returns is that it plays itself safe enough to at least feel like it wants to be a winner. The problem is that it doesn't really do much to prove that it is a winner beyond all doubt. It has a fine look to it at points with the cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel, and the effects are at least satisfactory for the expectations one would expect for the film, but other times it might seem more like it is going through the motions.

Perhaps it is the length of 154 minutes that undercuts the film and makes it feel a bit of chore, but I never hated the experience for being so long. The film rests upon Routh and his shoulders, and at times he does seem like he can live up to the task with some of the sequences. However, he never really clicks into full gear to where we really want to connect with him, particularly when paired with Bosworth. You might say that the gap that the film establishes between the last time the two characters had met (roughly five years) means that the awkward exchanges between the two makes sense, but the real problem is that they don't seem particularly interesting to watch in said exchanges. You could say that they seem a bit too young for the roles (after all, both actors were under 30 when cast), but it really seems more a problem of execution that does them in. After all, it's not like Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder were old when they portrayed their roles, but they had a certain charm and care to them that sold itself in each scene they were in, as opposed to this film. The fact that the film wants to channel the first two films makes the comparisons between those and this film hurt the latter upon examination.

Spacey proves to be fairly sour in his role, and he seems to relish in his lunatic role that actually manages to pull the film toward some sort of gain for most of his scenes, especially when paired with Posey, a fairly good charmer. I think the film probably could've done a bit better with some more scenes between Spacey and Routh, since it takes them nearly two hours to meet. However, that would likely mean having to try and make the film shorter with cuts, since I don't think making it longer would help it at all. Marsden doesn't really make too much of an impression for me, not so much a dull performance as it is just a slightly thankless role. Langella is fine for his time on screen. The film tries to go through so many motions with its plot that it just feels like it is trying to not bloviate itself into oblivion. From its parts with the scheme (which is amusing to ponder about) to its part with Lois and her son to a fairly okay climax, the movie likely has too much going on to really make a good focus. I never hated the experience with the film, but I also never found myself believing in what the film was trying to sell me. I feel that the film probably should've tried to be a reboot (much like Batman Begins (#062), released the year before) instead of trying to play itself a bit too safe with its homage of what had worked better decades prior. Can I recommend the film? I can in the sense that it will likely work just fine for people who are willing to buy into its homage attempt and willing to let the entertainment roll through without skepticism.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Black Panther.

Review #1050: Black Panther.

Cast: 
Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Michael B. Jordan (Erik Killmonger), Lupita Nyong'o (Nakia), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Martin Freeman (Everett K. Ross), Daniel Kaluuya (W'Kabi), Letitia Wright (Shuri), Winston Duke (M'Baku), Sterling K. Brown (N'Jobu), Angela Bassett (Ramonda), Forest Whitaker (Zuri), Andy Serkis (Ulysses Klaue), Florence Kasumba (Ayo), and John Kani (T'Chaka) Directed by Ryan Coogler (#760 - Creed)

Review: 
The Marvel Cinematic Universe films have had a scope and quality to them that make for a consistently entertaining series of movies, and it is hard to believe that it has been ten years since the release of the film that started it all, Iron Man (#135). While it can be argued that these comic book films do tend fall along traditional formulas, it is the tweaking of certain aspects that make for the successes that have occurred, whether with a tinge of humor or with a tinge of humanity to it. After all, this is the 18th film in the franchise, and while you could equate them to products in a line, at least they are fairly solid products. In the case of Black Panther, this is a good movie that pushes most of the right buttons to make for a solid winner. The best quote that can be said about the movie comes from itself: "Just because something works doesn’t mean it can’t be improved".

As mentioned in my review for Blade (1998), the film had originally been slated for development with Wesley Snipes in mind in the 1990s, although it languished in development for two decades, with Chadwick Boseman eventually being cast in the role in 2014. Black Panther (based off the comic book series of the same name that was originally created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby) had already been showed on the big screen prior to his own film, as he was introduced in Captain America: Civil War (#796) two years ago, and I remember he had made a fine impression on me. Obviously this film gives Boseman more time to show his character off, and he excels, managing to be an interesting hero with enough gravitas that manages to holds his own in a cast with a good deal of variety. Jordan does a great job, managing to show a good deal of charisma along with fury that makes for an interesting villain that stands out, particularly for a film universe that has not had the best of villain portrayals. Nyong'o and Gurira manage to provide capable performances that are fairly strong along with interesting to watch on screen, each having their own respective moments to shine. Freeman doesn't have much time on screen, but he does provide a satisfactory enough performance. Kaluuya doesn't have a lot to do with his character, but he does the best of what he can. Wright does a fine performance, having some clever charm along with characteristics reminding me of "Q" from the James Bond series while also having some amusing scenes with Boseman. Serkis manages to have a good scenery chewing time, for the time that he gets on screen anyway. The rest of the cast do a fine job in their respective roles and functions, such as Duke and his adversarial but crucial role or Whitaker and his mystical nature.

The themes of the film work to the film's advantage, presenting its arguments without being ham-handed in approach. There are other things deserving praise, such as Rachel Morrison and her cinematography and Ruth E. Carter's costume design, both working fairly well to complement the film, making for a worthy atmosphere to watch. The action sequences are fairly hit and miss; while I do appreciate some of the fight sequences, there are times when it feels a bit too standardized, with the climax serving as mild entertainment when not utilizing too much effects, and the resolution to the film is fairly satisfactory, with its 134 minute run-time being acceptable enough for me. I do appreciate that the movie doesn't try to tie itself to other films of the comic franchise too much (aside from a flashback or so), being a film that is interesting in just showing itself off without lingering too much on little details. Ultimately, this is a film that is a pretty good success, achieving its goals well without betraying its principles.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Blade.

Review #1049: Blade.

Cast: 
Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks / Blade), N'Bushe Wright (Dr. Karen Jenson), Stephen Dorff (Deacon Frost), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Donal Logue (Quinn), Udo Kier (Gitano Dragonetti), Sanaa Lathan (Vanessa Brooks), and Arly Jover (Mercury) Directed by Stephen Norrington.

Review: 
Blade was the sixth film that was based off a product from Marvel Comics (although it was only the second to be released widely in America, besides Howard the Duck in 1986), adapted off the comic book series created by Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan. The film began its development earlier in the decade, with LL Cool J expressing interest in playing the lead role before Snipes signed onto the role in 1996 (it is interesting to note that Snipes had plans to make a film about Black Panther, although that movie languished in development for over two decades until this year). In any case, this is an interesting take on the vampire film that generally hits more than it misses while notably being Marvel's first box office success.

There is just a certain level of excitement and style that makes the film ride consistently enough that comes in large part due to Snipes and his performance. He just manages to make the material feel believable and useful that might've sound silly with a lesser actor. Wright does a fine job, although I find that she doesn't particularly stand out too much. Dorff proves to be a quirky but fairly entertaining villain, having an unhinged manner to him that gels well on screen at times. Kristofferson manages to stand out pretty well with his rugged charm that clicks despite not having too much time on screen. The rest of the cast do their parts fairly well, not going too overboard nor too serious either. The action sequences are gripping and intense, managing to make for a quick tone that is fairly effective while not being disorientating. The plot isn't anything to be desired, but the film keeps itself entertaining enough to erase some of the nagging problems that would've become more noticeable for a film without as much enthusiasm or fun. The effects (with numerous sequences involving blood) look a bit wonky, but they don't distract too awfully as they probably could've been. The original cut (which lasted 140 minutes) had Dorff turn into a big mass of blood instead of the sword fight that does happen in the final cut, and upon seeing both versions of the fight, I can definitely say that they made the right decision in not using the big mass. At 120 minutes, the movie has a serviceable length that works without too much drag to it. On the whole, Blade is a strange mix of energy and slick filmmaking that works in the right places to make a solid piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Justice League.

Review #1011: Justice League.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Kal-El / Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / Flash), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), J. K. Simmons (James Gordon), and Ciarán Hinds (Steppenwolf) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice)

Review: 
To fellow readers: I did not intend for this review to be over 700 words, but here we are. Hopefully this review is consistent enough and useful for you.

Admittedly, the DC comic book films over the past few years have a been a bit...diverse (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, #828 - Suicide Squad, #942 - Wonder Woman), with their own particular brand of taste and style (and that is putting it lightly). This remains the case with this film, which is certainly a strange movie for one that is also wildly mediocre. Sure, I enjoyed the movie, but it is easily one that won't go down as anything great (in fairness, it's not like Thor: Ragnarok will go down as a hallmark of comic book films). It's clear that this movie wants to be lighter and fun, with varying results that come off as slightly inconsistent, particularly with characters like Batman, though that is not the biggest flaw. In any case, let me start with the main six, which is certainly an interesting bunch.

Affleck pulls off a pretty decent performance, being somewhat endearing even if seems like the character shifts tone from stoic to snarky, though it isn't too awfully distracting. Gadot is the best one of the group, being quite enjoyable and graceful as she was in her prior film. Miller is fairly entertaining in the film and is likely the most amusing part of the film. Momoa is fairly decent, though I'd say it takes time for him to really grow on you. Fisher is probably the weakest of the six, feeling a bit flat (though his character is at least useful to the plot). Cavill (with accompanying CGI-erased mustache) is decent enough for the time that he appears, but he doesn't really appear as much as he probably should've appeared. The supporting cast aren't really given much to do, and that can prove to be a bit disappointing (even in a movie all about the main six). It's not so much that Hinds does a terrible job as the villain as it is the fact that his character just isn't compelling to watch. with this being the worst part of the film. He is not a character that ever inspires fear or anything other than a mild expression, with his scenes with dialogue or fighting reminding me more of cut-scenes than actual scenes. Naturally, he is a villain that doesn't take too long to take down, with the victory feeling somewhat hollow that actually feels amusing to laugh at. The action sequences prove to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are sometimes pretty entertaining in their spectacle. On the other hand, the CGI just doesn't hold up that well, and for a movie that was reportedly made for over $300 million it certainly seems puzzling to see how it doesn't really work in the department. The film is at least sometimes amusing, and the cast does seem to have some good chemistry with each other, although at times it can come off a bit rushed, which can also apply in some way to the plot, which isn't too special, especially when it seems to go all over the place with its characters.

The film certainly feels a bit jumbled, no doubt due to post-production efforts in which Josh Whedon  (director of #312 - The Avengers and #706 - Avengers: Age of Ultron) was hired to rewrite additional scenes. In May of this year, Snyder stepped down during this process due to the death of his daughter, with Whedon taking over for rest of post-production, serving as director for scenes that he had written. In any case, Snyder is listed as the only director, though Whedon is given a credit for the screenplay (along with Chris Terrio, who had also co-written the story with Synder). The film certainly feels like a jumbling of numerous things, trying to give time for the three characters without their own film (Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg). Subsequently, the film feels rushed when trying to deliver exposition for them.

Ultimately, this is a movie that achieves its most basic goals of being escapism and entertainment. It is ridiculous in how okay it is, but I found it to be fairly acceptable, warts and all. It isn't anything worthwhile, but it's a movie that will prove just enough for some audiences. Take this film for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Ragnarok.

Review #1009: Thor: Ragnarok.

Cast: 
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur) Directed by Taika Waititi.

Review: 
It is interesting to see how one will be able to compare this film to the previous two installments, Thor (#041) and Thor: The Dark World (#827), along with how it compares to the other two Marvel films released this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (#932) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (#966). In a way, this is a film that wins and loses with regard to comparison. On the one hand, it is likely the lesser of the three Marvel films for this year, but on the other hand, it is likely the best Thor film yet. Hemsworth had already shined in the previous two films (along with appearances that he made in other Marvel films), but he does a tremendous job this time around, having a fun flair that is energetic along with entertaining. Hiddleston also does a pretty good job once again, having a mischievous but also fairly compelling, and his scenes with Hemsworth are entertaining. Blanchett does a fair job as the villain, having a few moments where she seems menacing, though I wouldn't say it is really too memorable or great. Goldblum, on the other hand, is pretty maniacal but also pretty entertaining for such a strange role, and he takes full advantage of it that works pretty well. Elba and Thompson are fine, with Hopkins and Cumberbatch doing well in the time that they appear on screen and Ruffalo being decent as well. The end credit scenes are fairly nifty as usual.

The film certainly tries to play itself for more of a comedic angle this time around, and on some level it works but it also can seem a bit overplayed and distracting, depending on the kind of mood or tone you're looking for. It feels more earned for something like the Guardians of the Galaxy films than it does for this film, but I will say that this film at least does shine with some amusement, with Hemsworth and Ruffalo's scenes being pretty good examples of that. At 130 minutes, it seems to have a fairly coherent pace, and while the film may not work for everyone, it certainly had enough to win me over with the fun that it has.

And with that, this ends the 117th review of Movie Night for the year of 2017. It isn't exactly an accomplishment, but this review means that there are more reviews published than there were last year in total (116). In any case, it's good to see some sort of productivity from myself (heck, there were only 90 reviews in 2015), so here's to productivity and more reviews in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Kingsman: The Secret Service.

Review #993: Kingsman: The Secret Service.

Cast: 
Colin Firth (Harry Hart / Galahad), Samuel L. Jackson (Richmond Valentine), Mark Strong (Merlin), Taron Egerton (Gary "Eggsy" Unwin), Michael Caine (Chester King / Arthur), Sophie Cookson (Roxanne "Roxy" Morton / Lancelot), Sofia Boutella (Gazelle), Samantha Womack (Michelle Unwin), Geoff Bell (Dean), Edward Holcroft (Charles "Charlie" Hesketh), Mark Hamill (Professor James Arnold), Jack Davenport (James Spencer / Lancelot), Jack Cutmore-Scott (Rufus Saville), Lily Travers (Lady Sophie), Hanna Alström (Princess Tilde), and Bjørn Floberg (Scandinavian Prime Minister) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class)

Review: 
It is evident early on to see the influence the James Bond films had in making this movie (based on the comic book series The Secret Service): specifically, the Roger Moore films. Granted, this is certainly more stylized in its action (and decidedly more violent) than those films, but this is a movie that is fairly enjoyable entertainment that will fill some people's taste significantly better than others. The best parts of the film involve either Firth and Egerton together on screen, or Jackson. The mentor-trainee aspects aren't particularly new (you could take your pick on what it reminds you, my pick would be Men in Black - #211), but they certainly are enjoyable to watch along with being capable heroes in their own right. Jackson does a capable job in part because he seems so comfortable with the role he is playing on screen, with a good sense of humor and self-awareness (which the film has a good deal of already) that is fairly entertaining; his supervillain plot is certainly an interesting one, resembling something one of the Moore Bond films would've done, reminding me a bit of Moonraker (minus the space parts, naturally) that certainly might seem a bit odd with its implications if deep thought was put into it, though what spy flick doesn't have that kind of quirk? The rest of the cast is fairly enjoyable and capable at their roles, such as Strong and Cookson, with Boutella proving to be a fairly useful (and thrilling) henchwoman.

The movie certainly has a useful sense of humor to it that hits more than it misses when required, fitting with the tone of the film for the most part. The action sequences are interesting to watch to be executed on screen, never really seeming to miss a beat nor feel too murky (with the easiest standout being at the church); the violence might prove to be a bit graphic for some, but I generally thought that it worked finely enough to the movie's advantage, for better or for worse. Ultimately, the enjoyment one gets from this movie comes from how they feel about the action and the way the movie goes about with getting to the highs (and slight lows) that it does. Take it for what it is worth, and you get a movie that has something to like (or watch) for most people, for better or for worse.

I don't usually get to say exactly what is next up on Movie Night, but here's a rare exception.
Next Review: Kingsman: The Golden Circle. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Review #966: Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Cast: 
Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Michael Keaton (Adrian Toomes / Vulture), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Robert Downey Jr (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Zendaya (Michelle), Donald Glover (Aaron Davis), Jacob Batalon (Ned), Laura Harrier (Liz), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Bokeem Woodbine (Herman Schultz / Shocker #2), Kerry Condon (F.R.I.D.A.Y.), Garcelle Beauvais (Doris Toomes), and Jennifer Connelly (Karen), and Hemky Madera (Mr. Delmar) Directed by Jon Watts.

Review: 
It is astounding at the level that comic book movies have undergone in terms of scope and quality in the past decade, with this being the 16th film in Marvel's film universe (of which I've covered all but one), though Spider-Man has had numerous films within this century, with the first film (the only one I've watched - #611) being released in 2002, only 15 years ago. It also isn't Holland's first appearance in the role, seeing as he was in Captain America: Civil War (#796) just last year. Once again, it was time to go to the theater for a comic book film.

Baggage or not, I can say this movie is pretty good. There is a numerous amount of things that I liked from this movie, and it starts with Holland, who is instantly enjoyable to watch on screen; there is just something about him that clicks in each scene, whether as Parker or the titular hero, and I look forward to watch him in further films. Admittedly, I did wonder how the villain would be in this film, considering how they usually aren't as memorable in a good deal of these Marvel films. For me, Keaton does a fine job in trying to get around that problem, in part because his character is actually compelling to watch on screen, and I think it's because you actually get a sense of what he's doing and why he does it without it simply devolving into something one dimensional. Favreau and Downey are pretty good in their scenes, with the latter having a chemistry with Holland that works pretty well with the flow of the film. Tomei, despite not having too much screen-time, is fairly enjoyable and fits well with Holland. The rest of the cast is fairly watchable as well, contributing to the film for some laughs along with the story; as comic relief, Batalon admittedly could be hit or miss, but I found him to be relatively harmless (in terms of annoyance), and he felt useful enough to the film without seeming empty. There's just something relatable about the world that the movie builds that seems ripe for more adventures.

The film doesn't go too much into the origins of the character, but it doesn't feel necessary to have, mainly because the movie operates itself fairly coherently enough to get past that. The action scenes aren't particularly great (with the shaky cam definitely being hit or miss), but it doesn't look too muddy to hurt the experience; though the action isn't great for the climax, the build up and the acting for it is well enough to keep that from being a disappointment. There is a light but fitting atmosphere that goes for some laughs while not bogging itself down in being generic. What other film can have a scene where characters try to build the Lego Death Star? That's the fun thing about these Marvel films, they are diverse enough in their approaches and style that make these films irresistible to watch for me. It's easy for me to recommend it (if you already haven't seen it), but it's also easy to say that this is a fine installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is a solid winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Wonder Woman (2017).

Review #942: Wonder Woman.

Cast:
Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Chris Pine (Steve Trevor), Robin Wright (General Antiope), Danny Huston (Erich Ludendorff), David Thewlis (Sir Patrick Morgan), Connie Nielsen (Queen Hippolyta), Elena Anaya (Isabel Maru / Doctor Poison), Lucy Davis (Etta Candy), Saïd Taghmaoui (Sameer), Ewen Bremner (Charlie), and Eugene Brave Rock (Chief) Directed by Patty Jenkins.

Review:
Last year, Wonder Woman made her first live on-screen theatrical appearance in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (#788), a movie that tried to set the stage for DC's own movie universe, though I would argue that it set the bar pretty low for future films to be better (as evidenced by Suicide Squad - #828). With this one, however, there is no question that this is a good film that manages to be quite consistent along with being well-crafted. The reason for this starts with Gadot and Pine, who have great chemistry and timing together; it's not so much that one doesn't do great without the other, but they certainly help the movie when they are interacting with each other (or the supporting characters). It shouldn't be understated that Gadot is wonderful as Wonder Woman, giving off an earnest performance that is easily likable and watchable; she is easily convincing in the action sequences, which helps the movie earn its wings in being good entertainment. The villains in the film aren't anything too special, but they are at leas serviceable entertainment, though the climax muddles them up a bit (no doubt due to the effects and the lighting clashing a bit). Regardless, they work for the film just fine, much like the trio that accompanies our main leads (Taghmaoui-Bremner-Brave Rock), who are easily watchable, while providing some light charm. Wright and Nielsen are also pretty good for the time they have on screen in the first half of the film.

The action scenes are pretty spectacular, with the sequences being executed well without becoming overstuffed (the climax is a bit big, but that makes sense for the end). The time period of the film (1918, near the end of World War I - called the "war to end all wars") was a neat choice in part because it gives the film different ground to tread (instead of being based off WWII like Captain America: The First Avenger (#060) did) while leaving shades of gray ambiguity. At 141 minutes, the movie runs at a useful pace, balancing its characters and scenes fairly well. The climax of the movie isn't particularly great (owing to a bit of muddy but workable tone that is somewhat cliche), though it doesn't hurt the movie too much. This is a movie that shines in sincerity, making its own mark in a world filled with comic book films. Is it a perfect movie? No, but it certainly is an fine achievement that I'm sure many were waiting for.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Swamp Thing.

Review #939: Swamp Thing.

Cast:
Ray Wise (Alec Holland), Adrienne Barbeau (Alice Cable), Louis Jourdan (Anton Arcane), Dick Durock (Swamp Thing), David Hess (Ferret), Nicholas Worth (Bruno), Don Knight (Harry Ritter), Al Ruban (Charlie), Ben Bates (Arcane Monster), Nannette Brown (Dr. Linda Holland), Reggie Batts (Jude), and Mimi Craven (Arcane's Secretary) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, and #633 - Red Eye)

Review:
With all of the superhero/comic book movies that have come out in the past decade (and the ones that will come in the next few years), it is a bit refreshing if not interesting to see one from a different time and what better than an 80s flick? Based off the DC Comics character of the same name, Swamp Thing is a more grounded kind of hero movie, feeling like a mix of monster and horror movies that make for a serviceable kind of film. Wise does well in the time he has on screen, making his character fairly relatable prior to his transformation. Barbeau is the one we see more of throughout the film (the eponymous hero takes a while to show up, naturally), and she pulls off a fine performance; her scenes with Swamp Thing are also enjoyable (one of the best parts is him answering her question if he is hurt: "Only when I laugh", with him soon laughing). Jourdan is a fair villain, being a bit overblown in his genius without being an over-the-top foe. His henchmen aren't too noteworthy, though Worth has an amusing scene with the two main leads after they all escape. Batts (in his only film role to date) does a capable job in a comic relief role. The film does have its moments of amusement, but it never veers towards outright slapstick, managing to keep a good balance while not being overtly campy. Craven does a fine job directing, handling the horror and sci-fi pretty well. The action scenes are enjoyable, and the suit for Swamp Thing looks pretty decent. The film also has a nice look to it as well (filmed in South Carolina); the swamp is fairly good to look at, mainly because the movie doesn't have a blurred effect to it (in other words, the special effects and the sets don't blur into each other). Though the movie lasts just 91 minutes, it certainly runs at an efficient pace, keeping itself going quite well. It isn't a great superhero flick, but it is a capable kind of movie worth considering.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Review #932: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Cast:
Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), Zoe Saldaña (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Baby Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Michael Rooker (Yondu Udonta), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Elizabeth Debicki (Ayesha), Chris Sullivan (Taserface), Sean Gunn (Kraglin), Sylvester Stallone (Stakar Ogord), and Kurt Russell (Ego) Directed by James Gunn (#626 -  Guardians of the Galaxy)

Review:
With reviews like these, I generally try to avoid making it about the experience I had around watching the movie in a theater on opening week, mainly because I fear that it may come off as irritating to you fellow readers. But I do admit that the Marvel films (after nine years and 15 films) are generally entertaining along with being well crafted, whether watched alone or with others by me (with the latter applying this time around). The first Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun enjoyable time that had its shares of amusement and thrills, which definitely hit the right spot for me (I'm just surprised it was released three years ago). In any case, this is a fairly enjoyable sequel, and while it doesn't quite rise to the level of the first film, it still works just enough without just being a rehash. The story decides to split the characters up until around the climax (while thankfully not hinting at them breaking up or anything), and I think it helps in letting the film breathe a bit with the characters it tries to feature along with the action. The main group of heroes are all pretty well in their roles; Baby Groot is a neat highlight. Pratt does a fine job, having good chemistry with Saldana and Russell. Cooper and Bautista also do fine jobs. Rooker (a fairly neat standout in the first film) gets a more significant kind of role this time around, and he does a good job with that advantage, being quite fun to watch. Russell is naturally entertaining, and he does a fine job at delivering the gravitas one would expect playing a living planet as a character. Klementieff is also pretty good at playing a slightly naive but easily likable character that has some neat scenes with Bautista. The rest of the cast (such as Gillian and Gunn) are also pretty fine at the roles they play. There is certainly a degree of emotional depth this time around (reminding me of The Empire Strikes Back, at least in some part) that more often than not manages to hit the mark and not bog the movie down, especially when the movie has a great spectacle of effects and action to back itself up nicely at 136 minutes. Take it for what it is: Good ol' fun, with Gunn delivering a fun flick once again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Logan.

Review #912: Logan.

Cast:
Hugh Jackman (Logan / X-24), Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier / Professor X), Dafne Keen (Laura / X-23), Boyd Holbrook (Donald Pierce), Stephen Merchant (Caliban), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Zander Rice), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gabriela), Eriq La Salle (Will Munson), Elise Neal (Kathryn Munson), and Quincy Fouse (Nate Munson) Directed by James Mangold.

Review:
In the films that I have watched where Hugh Jackman played the Wolverine (X-Men (#008), X2 (#010), X-Men: The Last Stand (#012), X-Men: First Class (#042), X-Men: Days of Future Past (#584); I haven't seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and X-Men: Apocalypse), it's evident to say that Logan stands out as the best of the bunch. Seeing this film in a packed theater certainly helped make for a homelier atmosphere, and the first five minutes certainly make for an intense if not riveting start to a movie that never really relents on entertainment. That's not to say that the movie is only full of action and language (after all, this is an R-rated film), as the film also has a good deal of emotional depth along with good performances from Jackman, Stewart, and Keen. Jackman and Stewart have already been in enough X-Men films together to make for fine chemistry already, but the road trip nature of this movie manages to give these two a good amount of highlights. Jackman and Keen have great chemistry together, just clicking immediately, with good writing also being helpful. Keen (in her first ever film) does a neat job, managing to bring out the humanity in what could've been either too sentimental or the opposite, and I hope to see more films revolving around this character. Jackman plays this withered role with the right kind of humility and timing, being entertaining as ever. Stewart certainly does a fine job once again, conveying the unstable and aged nature of the character in an emotionally satisfying way. Probably the only real flaw is that the villains aren't too great, though they do have a useful presence. Holbrook is pretty decent, managing to be arrogant enough to root against. Grant doesn't have too much screen time until the last half, but he is somewhat serviceable as a puppet master, just not very distinguishable from other mad scientists, minus hammy overacting at least. The action in the movie is thrilling, never managing to become too stale or rely on egregious killing just for killing. There is also a fairly competent story along with this movie, having a good time with a premise that could've been dreary with a lesser director/cast. On the whole, it's an excellent film that has both excitement and competency while being a good film for Wolverine to go out on.

On a sadder note, Robert Osborne, film historian and primary host for Turner Classic Movies (one of my favorite places to watch movies) died today at the age of 84. It is sad to see him pass on, particularly someone as knowledgeable and passionate about movies as he was. Rest in peace, Mr. Osborne.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.