Ocean's Eleven.

Review #1889: Ocean's Eleven.

Cast: 

George Clooney (Danny Ocean), Matt Damon (Linus Caldwell), Andy Garcia (Terry Benedict), Brad Pitt (Rusty Ryan), Julia Roberts (Tess Ocean), Bernie Mac (Frank Catton), Elliott Gould (Reuben Tishkoff), Casey Affleck (Virgil Malloy), Scott Caan (Turk Malloy), Eddie Jemison (Livingston Dell), Don Cheadle (Basher Tarr), Shaobo Qin (The Amazing Yen), and Carl Reiner (Saul Bloom) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky and #1526 - Traffic)

Review: 

"I wanted to see if I could combine two types of films, one that had this elegant, elaborate, technical side but also this casual off-hand quality to the performances – a film that wasn't aggressive."

The thing to remember about Ocean's 11 (1960) is that it sucked. It was a mediocre, bland movie that begged for a more involving script when it came to making a star vehicle heist movie that did only one thing right: making the idea of stealing money from Vegas with an intricate plan sounded cool. So yes, I would understand why someone would think they could do a remake of a 40-year old movie with a new array of talented name actors. Ted Griffin serves as the screenwriter for this film, which takes the loosest of inspiration from the original film and its screenplay by Harry Brown, Charles Lederer, George Clayton Johnson & Jack Golden Russell. Soderbergh, who went from indie classics such as Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) to mainstream success with Erin Brockovich and Traffic (both 2001), was recruited to direct, and he directed both of the subsequent sequels (released in 2004 and 2007), which were all commercial successes.

The easiest thing to say is that the remake is better than the original. In fact, it runs laps around the original, doing so despite perhaps being just a good feature rather than the possible great caper it could have been. It is not particularly outstanding in any one area, but it manages to do just enough in being good in most of the core aspects to make it a solid piece of entertainment. It is a movie that wants you have a good time and that's about it, doing so with casual energy and expertise that would make anyone favorable to a machine-type of film (i.e. a movie that is mechanical but solid for a rental) where the heist is a heist you might see coming but enjoy anyway, complete with assembling its key eleven pretty quickly in the 116-minute run-time. Clooney glides through the adventure with casual charm, maneuvering through the machinations of what comes with heists and people, which mainly consists of a few amusing moments when it comes to the setup and his key part of the climax. Pitt maneuvers as the second man with casual coolness that also lends for a few little neat moments, such as pretending to be a doctor to move his way forward. Damon has the self-effacing qualities one might see from other films with him, which more or less means that he makes the best of playing a quiet pickpocket. Granted, some of the supporting cast sticks out better than others. Cheadle tries his best to play the charade of having a Cockney accent in a manner that would make Dick van Dyke proud. Oh right, I hadn't actually seen Julia Roberts in a movie before. Eh, she's okay, but watching the chemistry between her and Clooney is merely passable in bittersweet zippiness, which either means I should watch more films with Roberts or just go on my merry way. Besides, Garcia is the real presence among the others, odious and calculating in all the right ways as the targeted heavy. Mac and Reiner make quality relief in the "comedians turned con men" roles, as is the case with Gould and his loose charisma. Disappointing that Jemison and Qin kind of fall by the wayside, since Jemison's panicky characterization is at least semi-interesting as opposed to Caan and Affleck trying to play siblings for what you'd expect in very loose amusement. Each half could be seen coming in terms of general "know where it's going" quality, but they work out in not dragging the obvious points down, and the eventual endpoint is a nice way to go out. As a whole, the movie is a glossy and familiar work, but it is a well-executed familiar work that does everything you would expect from it with plenty to like that fulfills its reasonable expectations just fine. Whether one has seen the original or the subsequent sequels to the remake, you can't really go wrong here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hamburger Hill.

Review #1591: Hamburger Hill.

Cast: 
Dylan McDermott (Sgt. Adam Frantz), Steven Weber (Sfc. Dennis Worcester), Courtney B. Vance (Spc. Abraham 'Doc' Johnson), Don Cheadle (Pvt. Johnny Washburn), Michael Boatman (Pvt. Ray Motown), Anthony Barrile (Pvt. Vincent 'Alphabet' Languilli), Michael Dolan (Pvt. Harry Murphy), Don James (Pvt. Elliott 'Mac' McDaniel), Michael A. Nickles (Pvt. Paul Galvan), Harry O'Reilly (Pvt. Michael Duffy), Daniel O'Shea (Pvt. Frank Gaigin), Tim Quill (Pvt. Joe Beletsky), Tommy Swerdlow (Pvt. Martin Bienstock), Tegan West (Lt. Terry Eden), and Kieu Chinh (Mama San) Directed by John Irvin.

Review:
"If you are able, save for them a place inside of you and save one backward glance when you are leaving for the places they can no longer go. Be not ashamed to say you loved them, though you may not have always. Take what they have left and what they have taught you with their dying and keep it with your own. And in that time when men decide and feel safe to call the war insane, take one moment to embrace those gentle heroes you left behind." - Major Michael Davis O'Donnell

My father shaped my experiences in watching film by the rows of films that were on the shelf collected by him while I grew up as a child. There was a small but significant portion of films that dealt with war in some way, which likely made sense with his service in Vietnam (he did not talk about it much, but the point remains). One of those films that stood firm was Hamburger Hill (1987). Time and time again one needs to look on a war film to see what seems familiar and what seems different from a depiction of a war, whether that means films made during the war itself (like The Green Berets (1968)) or ones made about the war years later (with or without a filmmaker with some war experience involved somewhere). Hamburger Hill came out in the run of the 1980s that depicted the war (with root from real life events or experiences) that ranged from Platoon (1986) to Casualties of War (1989). This was the sixth feature film from John Irvin, who apart from starting his work in television (with his most famous production being the miniseries Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) had done work in Vietnam in documentary filmmaking. The film was written by James Carabatsos (who also served as a co-producer), with this being the third of his six theatrical film efforts revolving around the war (the other two being Heroes (1977) and Heartbreak Ridge (1986)), as he had served in the 1st Air Cavalry Division in 1968; he did years of research in interviews with people of the conflict that took place over "Hill 937" from May 10-20 that is generally referred to as the Battle of Hamburger Hill.

As is the case with a number of war films, this one (produced by RKO Pictures) utilizes an ensemble cast, comprised of fresh faces that would include a few faces later to become familiar for subsequent works (whether involving film, television, or stage). Throughout the 110 minute run-time is a build to its title focus with a little bit of development before making its jump(s) to the battlefield, which generally turn out fine. As a chronicle of combat, it generally will rank well, mostly because it is a satisfactory film with unflinching perspective for the plight that comes with war that make it effective for what is needed. In other words, it's a good movie, sprinkling itself with a few interesting presences that we follow with as they try keep themselves from tearing oneself apart. The head among the cast (which has been listed both alphabetically or rank) falls to McDermott, making his feature debut. He does pretty well here, leading in steel weariness, young but still worthy in presence to lead folks on without being trapped in cliché. Vance (who had starred in the original 1987 Broadway production of Fences before making his film debut) also provides interest as the sense of soul for this group of folks to follow, hardened but still fascinating to view. Others do well in moments apart from warfare, such as with Weber, Boatman, or with Barrile, since one is dealing with a war of keeping one's will intact in a war of attrition and social unrest. By the the time the film makes its move on the hill (which took place over several assaults), the film is generally on its toes about where it wants to go in showing a group of people in a certain view without needless mythmaking or too much statement-making (although a scene jawing at reporters on the hill is certainly...interesting to think about). As a whole, it can certainly prove a harrowing pick for those who find interest in war films, whether for the experiences that come from it or something deeper inside.

Happy Veterans Day, folks.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Traffic (2000).

Review #1526: Traffic.

Cast: 
Michael Douglas (Robert Wakefield), Benicio del Toro (Javier Rodriguez), Don Cheadle (Montel Gordon), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Helena Ayala), Dennis Quaid (Arnie Metzger), Erika Christensen (Caroline Wakefield), Luis Guzmán (Ray Castro), Jacob Vargas (Manolo Sanchez), Tomas Milian (General Arturo Salazar), Topher Grace (Seth Abrahams), Miguel Ferrer (Eduardo Ruiz), Amy Irving (Barbara Wakefield), Steven Bauer (Carlos Ayala), D. W. Moffett (Jeff Sheridan), James Brolin (General Ralph Landry), and Albert Finney (White House Chief of Staff) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky)

Review: 
"Well, I think a part of you has to be scared, it keeps you alert; otherwise you become complacent. So absolutely, I'm purposefully going after things and doing things that I'm not sure if it's going to come off or not."

There's a difference between one doing films for a living and one making cinema, particularly when it comes to a process-driven director like Steven Soderbergh. He had an interest in film as a teenager that led to him doing his own shorts with a Super 8 and 16 mm camera. He moved to Hollywood by the 1980s and moved his way gradually through roles such as game show composing to concert video directing. His first directing responsibility was the 1985 concert film 9012Live, which featured the band Yes. An idea for a film combined with a cross-country trip led to the development of his first feature in Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989), a film regarded as an independent classic. Soderbergh (who once described himself as a synthesist) has done a mix of independent and mainstream films over the years, with noted works including Out of Sight (1998), Erin Brockovich (2000), and Ocean's Eleven (2001) that represent a versatile director of heist and psychological movies.

The basis for this film was Soderbergh wanted to make a film about the drug trade without having it be about addicts. With the rights to a property that seemed like what he wanted, producer Laura Bickford presented him with the rights to Traffik, a six-part 1989 miniseries written by Simon Moore that dealt with the illegal trade that wove a story between suppliers, growers, and customers from Pakistan to Germany to England, respectively). Looking for scripts led to one by Steve Gaghan that was about high school students and their problem with drugs and gangs that had Edward Zwick involved as producer, but the writer got him to try and do a film together with both Soderbergh and Zwick. After spending time consulting on the outline and doing films on the side, a script was finished that would have over a hundred speaking parts and split storylines to be shot in two months. The film was released by USA Films after 20th Century Fox went through wanting Harrison Ford for the lead, getting him to sign on, and dropping out even after script changes (which Douglas liked enough to take on the role after declining it initially). Soderbergh (who also shot the film himself) wanted a distinct vision for each of the three stories in order, such as having that involved different filters and contrast, such as no filter for a blue tinted Wakefield story or overexposed film with diffusion filter for Ayala's story or tobacco filter in Rodriguez's story.

It is interesting to view the film through its numerous perspectives that says what it wants about the approach to various cultures and the way that vices inhibit their little worlds in big and small ways of cruciality that shows shades of gray in every place with no real clear answer, with a war that isn't what it looks like on television. It has a cohesive edge in most areas that will inspire curiosity alongside certain emotions that make it stick with a viewer now as it did back in 2000. It doesn't compromise itself with trying to make a definitive statement or judgement on any of the three linked stories but instead lets the viewer make their own impressions on how vices (whatever kind of substance they are) can affect us or others around us without having easy solutions whatever border you live in. Obviously there isn't just one key star in the film, but the one that seems the most prominent to focus as first is Douglas, then followed by del Toro, Cheadle, and Zeta-Jones, although this isn't to diminish the effect others have in support. Douglas proves fairly captivating, one who runs with a hard-lined naivety that makes for a high-strung and capable performance that we can at least see some of which in others or ourselves in what we believe seems right. The speech at the end for example makes a point in what it doesn't say just as much as what actually is said about a fight against substances and ourselves, which Douglas handles neatly. When it comes to del Toro (a Puerto Rico native that shifted his focus from studying business to drama at the age of 20), he sticks out just as well in his distinct storyline (told to us primarily in Spanish with subtitles, which is what Soderbergh desired) in jaded honesty that we follow with great interest because of his well-timed instincts for what seems to be necessary to eke out a living within authority and corruption. This works out best in a little scene involving tourists looking for their car and del Toro telling them about calling a man to help them find the car (after stating the police won't find their car) - it is a fascinating moment that would've probably just been a one-shot blip with a less intuitive actor (incidentally he would later star in another drug war related film with Sicario, which also rules). Cheadle does just as well in reliable nature with a sort of cat-and-mouse game involving procedure and coercion, which he does with careful tension. This reflects just as well on Zeta-Jones in her evolution of principles and moments shared with a sneaky (and fairly effective) Quaid.

There are other aspects that do well, such as Christensen in driving the angle of shocking addiction without seeming like an after-school special act, but it ultimately is the balance of its three storylines in look and tension that makes it a mostly well-done film for its era. It will hold the attention for most of its intentions in 147 minutes that rewards patience through a mostly intact plot and fair camerawork and editing. It accomplishes most of what it wants to speak to us by knocking us over in its statements said and unsaid that excels in uncompromising uncomfortability that speaks truth to hypocrisy now more than ever.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Bulworth.

Review #1518: Bulworth.

Cast: 
Warren Beatty (Senator Jay Bulworth), Halle Berry (Nina), Oliver Platt (Dennis Murphy), Don Cheadle (L.D.), Paul Sorvino (Graham Crockett), Jack Warden (Eddie Davers), Isaiah Washington (Darnell), Christine Baranski (Constance Bulworth), and Amiri Baraka (Rastaman) Directed by Warren Beatty (#205 - Dick Tracy)

Review: 
"I think it’s crazy to take what aspires to be a work of art and loquaciously expand on what you think about it. Ideally you’d like a movie to speak for itself. It’s like giving subtitles to one, two or three years of work. But nowadays it’s such a mass medium you have to. Especially if you make very few films."

It is hard to state how much responsibility one can really have on a film if they have enough self-confidence and control in oneself to back themselves up. Warren Beatty certainly belongs in that category. By the time the New Hollywood era rolled around in the late 1960s, he had already worked with numerous respected directors while eventually growing an interest in becoming more than just a star in a production, such as producing the hit Bonnie and Clyde (1967). In a film career that started in 1961, he has starred in 23 films (with considerable time spent in other interests such as family), while also serving as producer on ten of them, directing six of them (starting with Heaven Can Wait in 1978) and writing for five (he does all three for this film). He has made his films his own way to his own interests like a good director does that has received quite a deal of attention, such as an Academy Award for Best Director with Reds (1981) and an Irving G. Thalberg Award (meant to honor creative producers such as him) in 1999.

One can only imagine what kind of film can be made on the pitch Beatty had for the film: "A man is depressed, makes a deal for life insurance, takes a hit out on his life, then falls in love with a girl, changes his mind and tries to call the whole thing off.” It only was after he was given the green light to go with it that led to what he wanted beyond that pitch (in other words, a lost idealist finding the words to what he really wants to say to everybody that involve race relations and class disparity). Beatty sought others who helped him in the past with ideas, such as James Toback (writer on Bugsy) and Jeremy Pikser (previously a historical consultant on Reds and credited co-writer on this film with Beatty) while Aaron Sorkin reportedly did a re-write on the script, and the approach of hip-hop came about because of Beatty favoring it as a "great comic contrast." In a way, I had to resist my first instincts when it came to approaching the film. It definitely is a strange film in terms of tone that will either seem really dated or somehow fairly prescient in what it means to society as a message film that verges away from others of its type by going off the rails at certain points with humor. It is an acrid film, one that argues for one to find the spirit in them to rise above market research and go against the grain to speak the straight truth - no matter how it may come out to some in its clash of ideal and compromise. Is it a prescient film about the nature of straight-talking politicians? I don't know if I would go that far (because just saying "It's the film for [current year] politics" is complete hokum), but it definitely has a bit of meaningful sting as a wakeup call of sorts for what matters most: Stick to the issues and just money compromises (whether Democrat or not). It certainly isn't perfect by any means, but I did find myself soon enjoying its attempts at satire that hit more often in striking lines with a beat towards the present without becoming too dated in outlandish histrionics.

One might come to see Beatty have his share of dialogue in rap, but they will generally also stay to see him engage in some straight charisma that will rally some insight alongside some decent timing that never seems too buffoonish, although the romance is debatable. His little jabs at everyone along the way in talking facts (or at least straight-edge ones for 1998, like supporting single-payer healthcare), for better or worse. Berry provides some intrigue, although really they seem more suited as a counteract than anything involving romance mostly because it also just happens to be interlocked with this assassin stuff very disjointedly - she has a good sense of careful charm while playing against a beleaguered (or perhaps strange) Beatty. Platt plays the sniveling type that surely was meant to be an amusing supporting counterpart to management, which he does fine despite not really being that funny (one almost would rather see a criminally underused Warden in that role instead). Cheadle makes fragmented appearances that likely deserves more to really do, which can be reflected with a just as quiet Sorvino in their deep presences within certain interests. On the whole, its first half seems more suited to more interesting moments of farce and perhaps some insight moreso than the stranger (if not still curious) second half that trades in a suit for contemporary clothing and becomes perhaps a bit more hollower than it really believes it should be. I can't say it really kicks in for all of its 108 minutes to be anything more than a passing curiosity of its time, because it really does dwell a bit all over the place, but the rails can go off and still click fine. The ending yearns to inspire a lasting thought about being a ghost with a song to sing for when it comes to saying (and being) what you believe in, and whether the film succeeds in actually generating a push for curiosity about certain aspects of society (race, and I mean more than just asking if you can solve racism by having everybody mix in as one race) is up to how much of it really resonates in the final margin call.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Endgame.

Review #1213: Avengers: Endgame.

Cast: 
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Brie Larson (Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Josh Brolin (Thanos), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne / The Wasp), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Rene Russo (Frigga), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Benedict Wong (Wong), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Dave Bautista (Drax), Letitia Wright (Shuri), John Slattery (Howard Stark), Tilda Swinton (The Ancient One), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter), Marisa Tomei (Aunt May), Angela Bassett (Ramonda), Michael Douglas (Hank Pym), Michelle Pfeiffer (Janet Van Dyne), William Hurt (Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Winston Duke (M'Baku), Hiroyuki Sanada (Akihiko), Tom Vaughan-Lawlor (Ebony Maw), Vin Diesel (Groot), Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), and Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier, #796 - Captain America: Civil War, and #1079 - Avengers: Infinity War)

Review: 
It is a strange thing to reach the end of a film saga like this one, with 22 films in eleven years that showcased numerous heroes onto the big screen while making a cinematic universe unrivaled at this moment by any other sort of studio. There will be more comic book films in the future from Marvel Studios that one would hope will continue to make interesting hero stories that work well as entertainment. As I recall from Infinity War last year, I thought that it was a pretty good experience that went for spectacle and succeeded in packing in each moment it wants to for a 149 minute run-time. Endgame decides to build on the model with a 181 minute run-time, which makes it longer than any comic book film - which is likely for the best, since at least it does try to be thorough with where it wants to go. This is a film that has a big task on its hands - it has to follow the previous Avengers film and its big punch at the end from its main threat: half of the universe is eliminated on a snap of the fingers of its big space device, the Infinity Gauntlet. It was pretty shocking to see that actually occur in that film, but I admit that it had to happen, mostly because there had to be a way to put big stakes for the inevitable sequel - so why not just have some of your heroes actually vanish? Of course, we live in an age where rumors and sequel reports are rampant, so seeing a hero die does tend to feel a bit hollow if you figure that they'll just return for their own batch of sequels (although explaining that to a kid would probably be a bit cynical at first). In any case, this is a film that has fun with some of its greatest hits by going back to the past, which works itself out just fine without becoming too stupid with its use of time travel as a plot device - for the most part. For me, I thought that the film was pretty good. It is probably as good as the last film, and it will probably rank up as a top ten favorite of this "Infinity Saga", which is for the best. It lives up to the expectations set from before and fulfills its destiny as an ending that proves satisfactory in closing things out with its own set of twists and action pulls. It has a bit of emotional weight to it at least, with its opening scene being a pretty fine highlight in actually showcasing some consequences along with the only Avenger actor given nothing to do over the years in Renner, so that works out. Finales are hard to land, particularly with trying to cover its bases and hooking its audience with excitement and rewarding the ones who have watched these films for over a decade with a real ending. Suffice to say, this works out well.

Undeniably, the best part of the film for me was the interactions of the heroes together with each other, with a key emphasis on the original cast-mates from the earlier films, while pairing off certain heroes with each other like the previous Avengers film did, such as Downey and Evans, Johansson and Renner, or Hemsworth with Cooper. These work out pretty well, with Downey being the most entertaining part of the film, as one would expect from someone doing a role once again over the past eleven years while serving as the heart of these films with his journey, which works out as well as one should expect. Evans and his earnest nature shine through just as well, persistent and well-natured with his own story. It makes sense to pair these two together for their own little story, which makes for a neat team-up when it comes together. Ruffalo is pretty fun to be around with, working this character to a brilliant balance that lets him not get lost in the effects while giving him time to shine. Hemsworth is fine, representing the one most changed by the events from before, which works fine - minus the parts when he is just used as comic relief for the first half, which can feel a bit tiring given his character over the past few years, even if isn't completely permanent, and I do look forward to seeing him again in other films. Johansson does well for herself here again, resilient as expected. Renner does a good job here as well, particularly with a well-done sequence in Japan that makes for quick but fun action. Among the other parts of the main group of heroes to shine is Gillan, Rudd and Cooper, who help contribute to giving the film some weight and humor, respectively. The ones to not get much to really do is Cheadle and Larson, honestly. Brolin plays the inevitability of his villain fairly well when he is on screen (although I did chuckle a bit at his "Farmer Thanos" getup for a moment). He doesn't really have as much to go on as before, but going from a pursuit for powerful stones to trying to keep his power does make him still seem dangerous without diminishing him too much. The key moments that drive the film aren't necessarily just big action pieces (of which there are enough for any action hound) but instead moments smaller on scale, such as Downey with Slattery sharing a scene together or Hemsworth with Russo at respective key points of time. It isn't so much because the moments just help to drive the plot at each point as it the fact that it resonates with what viewers have seen from these heroes and parents that shape them that resonate far more than a simple quip. The film's plot tries to juggle these characters and its destinations with an assortment of set pieces and time travel gobbledygook (which makes sense if one really doesn't think about it severely) that builds up to a big climax battle - which I found to be fairly satisfactory. I felt it made the right choices of where to go more often than not without simply devolving itself into complete overload of fan-service. It will make people really emotionally invested in these characters probably have some sort of release of emotion (which for me are just movies) and it will work out well for occasional viewers without bashing their head in with a insulting plot. It is grandiose and consuming for those who seek it, pure and simple. It may inspire a bunch of debate over how it handles certain characters (or how things ultimately ends up), but it is clear that there was a great deal of effort to pull things together to make a winning end without having a creaky foundation.

One will leave the theater probably with a sense of relief that the film worked out as well as it did within the big amount of time it had to do so, likely reflecting on how things go from there. I will probably stick around to see how some of the next few films turn out in trying to build adapt new heroes on screen and what interesting things could happen next while probably looking back on these films on occasion. This has been the best and strangest ride of entertainment that transformed comic book movies into something more, turning heroes only just known in comic circles and elevating it into the mainstream. None of these films are perfect, but they each have had their own vision and purpose, with this one being a fine gem amongst other shining features, with this being a moment of triumph.

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.

Captain America: Civil War.

Review #796: Captain America: Civil War.

Cast
Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Don Cheadle (James "Rhodey" Rhodes / War Machine), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Paul Bettany (Vision), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Emily VanCamp (Sharon Carter), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Frank Grillo (Brock Rumlow / Crossbones), William Hurt (Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross), Daniel Brühl (Helmut Zemo), and Martin Freeman (Everett K. Ross) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier)

Review
One could make the argument that you could make a guess as to what will happen in the movie given the seemingly never ending progression of the Marvel Cinematic Universe from phase to phase, year after year. But I always try to go into these movies with at least some sort of open mind and try to see if I will enjoy what are currently the best made movies of this generation. The case still stands true with Civil War. While I think that Winter Soldier was a slightly better movie in terms of plot, Civil War manages to keep the entertainment flow going with enough action, charm, and bits of interesting discussion. It is hard to not compare this with the other film (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice) released earlier in the year about superheroes fighting against each other, but it is evident that this film did the better job in the departments that matter most: Setting up the conflict that leads to a fight and the actual fight itself. The progression of these films mean that one can see the layers of disagreement through the main two leads and actually emphasize with both sides (for the most part) and their viewpoints.

Sure, you can pick a side, but the movie marches on regardless, with expert juggling of all of these characters also being a key benefit. The villain this time around isn't easily apparent, but his motivations are least coherent enough, tying in well to the theme of the movie, involving the collateral damage that the Avengers leave in their battles (which while sounding like a no-brainer does make a bit of sense in the film). The usual castmates are excellent, with Evans and Downey being excellent main leads. Boseman and Holland are our new additions to the main cast, and they both make excellent impressions, with the latter (who is barely older than I am) especially standing out, with all the wise cracks one would expect from Spider-Man. Like the other Marvel movies before it, there is a certain level of fun amidst all of the mayhem, which makes up for a 2 and a half hour run time, although it certainly doesn't feel that long. Civil War manages to do its job effectively while not over-stuffing itself too much, and I certainly enjoyed it enough.

For reference, this is #23 in my (seemingly longrunning) Theater Saga, this time with friends, with this experience being pretty good.

Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Review #706: Avengers: Age of Ultron.

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), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), James Spader (Ultron), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Pietro Maximoff / Quicksilver), Paul Bettany (Jarvis / Vision), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / The Falcon), Linda Cardellini (Laura Barton), and Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter) Directed by Josh Whedon (#312 - The Avengers)

Review

It's a good movie. Is it great? No, but it is an entertaining movie. While it admittedly stuffs itself a little too much with a bit of everything, that's not to say the movie isn't too imperfect. To say there is a load of heroes in this film is a bit of an understatement, though the movie doesn't utilize all of them, which is disappointing if you liked War Machine. Or the Falcon. But hey, at least we get three new heroes into the fray, though Quicksilver in this film isn't as interesting as the one played by Evan Peters in X-Men: Days of Future Past. Why the two versions are so different is beyond me. Olsen does make Scarlet Witch seem interesting, which is welcome with me. As usual, our main six Avengers are good with each other, and it is nice to see some character development for Hawkeye (in the sense that I remember his name now. Oh, and something about a family), which is fine. But of course, this review can't function without mention of James Spader as Ultron. I knew at some point I'd talk about Spader (who I find perpetually awesome in The Blacklist. Boston Legal was fun to watch when I was younger, though it's been about...four years since I've seen it), and here we are. I like his performance. Yes, he's constricted to just his voice, but I find his tone very well suited to a role such as this. His performance is really entertaining, though I wonder if he is up to the same level as Loki's villainous role in the first film. The effects are nice, and it is refreshing to see The Vision's look, though I do wonder why he made a cape (No capes!). But the movie is good. It does over stuff itself with characters and plot lines, but to be fair, it's not like that's all a bad thing. This Marvel universe is only getting bigger, and I can't wait to see what's next. It's not a step back from the first film, more of a transition to the next phase, which is fine with me. Enjoy the movie, and try to snag as much popcorn as you can. Or whatever. 

Trailers seen before the movie: Insidious 3 (ha!), Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (double ha!), Masterminds (meh), Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (interesting), and Fantastic Four (why?).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Iron Man 3.

Review #396: Iron Man 3.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes/Iron Patriot), Guy Pearce (Aldrich Killian), Rebecca Hall (Maya Hansen), Ben Kingsley (Trevor Slattery), Stephanie Szostak (Ellen Brandt), James Badge Dale (Eric Savin), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Ty Simpkins (Harley), Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.), William Sadler (President Ellis) and Miguel Ferrer (Rodriguez) Directed by Shane Black.

Review
In Review #372, I reviewed 42, but this was never the original purpose. I went to the movie theater (big shock, I actually got out of the house), and because Iron Man 3 was sold out, so I picked 42 on the spot. 42 was a fine film, but it always bugged me that I missed Iron Man 3 on that day. 37 days later, I went to the movie theater to go see Iron Man 3, to complete the cycle of the Iron Man films I've reviewed (#135 - Iron Man, #334 - Iron Man 2) and to see if Shane Black could do a good job directing as he does writing (He screenwrote #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout) for a film like this. So was it worth the wait? Yeah, pretty much. Robert Downey, Jr does a great job once again, evolving the character more, but still keeping just like we like Stark. Paltrow works well with Downey, given the amount of screen time, which is alright. Cheadle does well, consistant as always. Guy Pearce (Who I never had heard of until this film) does a fine job, not too bad a villain. As these films evolve, the villains get harder to beat, a bit more detailed after a while, which works well. I liked Ty Simpkins, not a bad child actor overall. Kingsley is allright, even if I think he's a bit underused for the film. The action works well, and the level of spectacle is at an all time high. The story flows allright, not doing too bad. This film is slightly better than Iron Man 2, not better than the first film, but still a good way to continue this film series. I do wonder if there will be a fourth one though. But at least now my..movie journey is complete. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Iron Man 2.

Review #334: Iron Man 2.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff), Sam Rockwell (Justin Hammer), Mickey Rourke (Ivan Vanko), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson), John Slattery (Howard Stark), Garry Shandling (Stern), and Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.) Directed by Jon Favreau (#135 - Iron Man)

Review
This is the tenth Marvel film reviewed here (X-Men, X2, X-Men: The Last Stand, Fantastic Four, Rise of the Silver Surfer, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers), the fifth in the Marvel film Universe that has been taking place the last few years. This is the sequel to Iron Man (Obviously), but does it hold up to its predecessor? In some ways, yes. Downey does a fine job once again, keeping that distinct, yet fun personality. Paltrow and Downey mesh well once again, and Cheadle (though not the same actor from the first film) works well into the film. And then there is the villain. Rourke is good, but I feel that the film doesn't focus on him enough. While the first film had a villain that gradually came to be only in the end, there was a feeling for that character. And yes there is another villain (sort of), but it's not exactly a feel of a villain. But oh well, the action is still entertaining and it doesn't really have other real big flaws. While it may not be as good as the first, it still is good enough to work out in the end.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Volcano (1997).

Review #202: Volcano.

Cast
Tommy Lee Jones (Mike Roark), Anne Heche (Dr. Amy Barnes), Gaby Hoffmann (Kelly Roark), Don Cheadle (Emmit Reese), Jacqueline Kim (Dr. Jaye Calder), Keith David (Lieutenant Ed Fox), John Corbett (Norman Calder), Michael Rispoli (Gator Harris), and John Carroll Lynch (Stan Olber) Directed by Mick Jackson.

Review
The film is easy to describe in a few words: "Volcano pops up in Los Angeles, cheesiness ensues." Tommy Lee Jones at least does a good job, given what he is in (he sure has been in a lot of situations from a FBI marshal to Ty Cobb) The characters are introduced in a snap but aren't much in terms of memorable territory. The cheesiness factor ranges from scene to scene, but my "favorite" is when the lava is destroying a house (man, that's weird to type), and the dog is trapped there. He looks around...and barks at the lava before going out the doggy door. That alone is laughable. The effects are decent, they look believable enough, but the last thing I'll mention (probably most important) is the relatively changing science in the film. Characters get close to lava without feeling much and when toughing the lava are dead with the touch (you might as well use TV Tropes to help you understand volcanoes) At points, the lava isn't much threatening, as it moves slower then a snail at points. I might as well mention this film is 15 years old (it doesn't feel that way though)...But the last question is: Is it better then Dante's Peak? Probably, but it doesn't matter given that both are slightly forgotten, and that is probably for the best.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.