Superhero Mega Appreciation: The Avengers

     The long-anticipated star-studded ensemble superhero extravaganza The Avengers entered theaters this weekend with a...vengeance. Teehee. See what I did there. It's already breaking records; it surpassed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 for biggest opening weekend, almost recouping its production budget in the first three days it was out. That doesn't necessarily mean that much; it seems like almost every new movie that comes out nowadays breaks some new record, and Avengers is really only the second big movie out this year. However, that's still a ton of money. And is it worth it?
    Yes. Yes, it is. I am so happy to be able to say that yes, it is. It's enjoyable, action-packed, character-driven, and smart. In fact, it's prime Joss Whedon ( and I'm not just fangirling. Okay, I kind of am. When his name came up at the end of the movie, I screamed and was greeted with blank stares from the rest of the theater. Oh well, it was worth it. I cheered again when his writing credit came up). Caution: Spoiler-y-ness may follow. 
     The most important thing that Avengers gets right is the characters. In a giant cast like this, it would be easy for most of the scenes to go to one or two characters while thee rest merely supported those stars, but each member of the Avengers (and even the villain) get plenty of screen time and development. Also, Avengers manages to keep the individual tones of each previous movie when dealing with a character (an example of this would be the soundtrack; a classical ballad plays at a concert and continues through a Captain America scene, but when Iron Man comes on it changes abruptly to one of the rock songs characteristic of the first two Iron Man movies), while still establishing a new tone for the group dynamic that is totally different.

See, like this kind of group dynamic. This was the scene where Captian America chaperoned Hawkeye and Black Widow's date. 

    Avengers also had some more overtly religious symbolism than the other Marvel movies; Whedon is by no stretch a Christian, but he certainly has an interest in faith and the supernatural, which he displays even in the vaguely occultic Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Religous characters show up frequently in his work (spirits/demons/priests in Buffy, faithful Shepherd Book in Firefly who is rarely shown without his Bible), so it is no surprise that Whedon is willing to explore spiritual ramifications in Avengers. One interesting example of this occurs toward the middle of the movie when Loki (the main villain in Avengers and Thor's brother from Thor) commands a crowd of people to bow to him. He says something to the effect of, "You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel," and one old man stands up and says, "Not to men like you." The implication being that we were indeed made to kneel, but not just to anyone who thinks they can command us. One other scene that surprised me in its directness occured just after Thor's debut in the movie. Captain America, thinking he is a villain, is about to go after him, when someone tells him something like, "You'll never be able to catch up with him. He's a god." The Captain responds, "There's only one God, Ma'am. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that." That line, simple and direct, got a rousing cheer from the audience in my theater, and it was heartening and surprising to see something like that in such a popular film. Black Widow's back story also had some interesting spiritual parallels-- while it's often hard to tell whether or not she is telling the truth, it seems at least clear that she has some sort of "red on her ledger" that she's desperately trying to absolve herself of. (Here's where I will display the sad truth that I am totally a complete nerd, yet I am an unsatisfactory nerd at that. I don't read comic books. So I have no idea what the back story between Black Widow and Hawkeye is.) Black Widow seems to think that the only way she can clear this from her record is through saving Hawkeye-- but Loki tells her something like, "do you think you can really make up for the thousands of deaths you've caused by saving one man?"  The Black Widow's tortured state as she tries to "justify" herself is clear...unless of course, she's lying about all that, too. One can never know with her.

Or maybe, when she says "ledger", she means "hair." That would also make sense. 

     The character development is really what sets Avengers apart from other summer popcorn flicks. None of the other movies have flopped (well...except for The Incredible Hulk), in part because they all have very strong characters and great actors. However, in Avengers, Whedon takes these characters that we are already familiar with and mixes them together, sometimes pitting them against one another and sometimes showing strong bonds between them. Each character has an individual struggle that gives them plenty of screen time: Iron Man dealing with arrogance and not wanting to play as "part of the team," Captain America seeking to re-adjust after being out of commission for 60+ years, Bruce Banner struggles with not letting the Hulk control him, Thor and Loki struggle with Loki's daddy issues, Black Widow struggles with her dark past, and Hawkeye, um...gets turned into a zombie or whatever I guess? So here's the character breakdown:
Hawkeye: I love Hawkeye to death, but he doesn't have a huge presence in this film. I mean, he's in it a lot, and he's heroic, and he has some really good scenes with the Black Widow. And his arrows are super cool. But he was one of the less compelling characters, at least on this go-around.

Plus, I thought cracking jokes during surgery was totally unprofessional.

Black Widow: was a pleasant, pleasant surprise. I don't remember her being all that memorable in Iron Man 2...I just remember sort of thinking, "Oh hey. Scar Jo. She can kill people and that's cool and whatever. Also she looks pretty which is why she's here." In Avengers, she's much more of a real presence and a real character-- from defeating a bunch of dudes while tied to a chair to squeezing key information out of Loki, she rocked. And while Black Widow's outfit is a skin-tight leather suit, I guess I can't really complain since that's basically what all the guys in this movie wear. And she never loses part of her costume during battle, she never kisses anyone, and she never gets kidnapped by the villain. So, cheers all around.
Thor: I like Thor. I think he's fantastically adorably awkward. I thought his movie could have been better, so I wasn't expecting much from him in Avengers. But I actually liked him in this way more! He has to deal with the villain being his own brother, along with the knowledge that his arrival on earth was what caused S.H.I.E.L.D. to create superweapons with the tesseract. And all the while he's so fantastically adorably awkward.
Hulk: The Hulk was amazing. Mark Ruffalo did a phenomenal job, and the character rehaul definitely worked-- Banner is likeable and compelling. There's a bit of a werewolf aspect to Hulk (which is why I've never been a huge fan. I dislike the whole werewolf mythos, since it says basically, "You are an animal and there is nothing you can do to control yourself," which is certainly interesting for a story but has some very dangerous implications), but it's definitely a pleasure to watch Banner take control of the Hulk and bring him to fight for his own ends (which is confusing since they're actually the same person but...ya know).

Of course, Joss is used to writing totally adorable werewolf-types. 

     IRON MAN AND CAPTAIN AMERICA: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Now, perhaps I'm being unfair here since the Captian is my favowite Avenger. But honestly, the dynamic between these two was so perfect. I had been wondering how it would work out when the snarky, arrogant Tony Stark encountered the earnest, serious Steve Rogers. And it's every bit as prickly as you would think it would be at first-- Stark mocks Rogers, and Rogers is disgusted by Stark. However, their interactions made for the most rewarding character development, as the Captain continually berates Iron Man for his bad attitude, and while IM (that's what I'm calling Iron Man from now on) retaliates with his trademark off-the-cuff wit, it becomes clear towards the end of the movie when {Spoiler Alert} he actually demonstrates the self-sacrifice of a hero, just as CA (that's Captain America, for those keeping track at home) encouraged him to do. Stark also realizes halfway through the movie that he is just like Loki when he says, "He wants an audience...he wants people watching...he wants monuments that reach into the sky and spell out his name..." realization dawns on Stark's face as the camera pans out to reveal the giant Stark Tower rising above New York City. This arc is completed at the close of the movie, when the camera once again pans back to show that rather than letters spelling out "STARK" on the tower, only the "A" (for Avengers!) remains. Sooooo sweeeeeet.

It's like this, but without the S, the T, the R, and the K.

    The plot really is driven by the characters, which means that it is not just another mindless action film-- although it does have some seriously fantastic action sequences! But the action sequences have a purpose, they're not just Michael Bay Random-Splosions. I was worried when I heard there were going to be aliens in it-- Indy 4, anyone--but the aliens really don't have a huge presence in the movie, and they come in at just the necessary time for a show-stopping fnale without bogging the film down.
   Joss Whedon did a great job making a film that not only meets but exceeds expectations-- and expectations on this one were huge. We can look forward to not only Captain America 2, Iron Man 3, The Avengers 2, and whatever other movies arise from this franchise, but hopefully to many more movies helmed by Whedon. And maybe. Just maybe. Another season of Firefly. (Hey, I can dream, right?)

P.S. Oh, and I guess Nick Fury was in it too. Every time he was offscreen I forgot he was a part of the movie. I guess he had to put the gazpacho on ice or whatever.

*Samuel L. Jackson Bonus Alert * *Samuel L. Jackson Bonus Alert *Samuel L. Jackson Bonus Alert*

Some thoughts on Female Protagonists

   I promise that this is not merely another Hunger Games post. I realize that I've been prolifically posting on that particular subject lately, in fact, I've been bordering on fangirling (which is not something I normally do for anything other than Star Wars and Joss Whedon). The feminist movement, as I like to tell the imaginary hordes of people who want to hear what I have to say, was severely damaging to the family and society as a whole in many ways, but that being said, it really sort of had to happen.

This had to happen, too. I definitely support this.

    Please understand, I'm not supporting some sort of radical feminist movement here. I'm supporting something that God ordained from the very beginning-- that men and women are equal and both created in His image. Their roles are different, but they're equal. So yes, woot for us getting the vote and all that.Without going into too much detail, I just have to lay a little bit of that out in order for the rest of the post to follow (it's one of those fancy "sequences", like the board game Sequence. Which I never could figure out how to play. But hopefully you'll be able to follow this sequence. Anyway.) (And, also? Pictures again! I know how much you kiddos love pictures and have taken it into consideration).
    If you look at stories, you basically have two types of female protagonists: the wimps and the butch. Into the "wimps" category would fall all the Disney princesses created before 1970 (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White), Lucie Manette from Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities (seriously, she is the worst), and, I gather, though not, fortunately, through first-hand experience, that Bella person from those Twilight stories. The wimps don't really do much. They sit around a lot, and they faint, and they are nothing without a man. (again, reiterating, I am not arguing that there is anything wrong with marriage or the man's authority therein. I am arguing against women who are weak and/or dumb.)

I mean...she's clearly not really the proactive type.

      The butch overcompensate by acting just like men. These are all the tomboys and the hardened women-- think any police/detective on any crime show ever, Starbuck, possssibbly Mulan, since she, ya know, dressed as a dude. Not that there aren't enjoyable things about both of these types of characters, but they are both very obviously written for women-- in the first case, conforming to age old stereotypes of how women should behave, and in the second, consciously attempting to buck those same stereotypes.

You see that? That is the look of a man who is questioning his sexuality.

    And then there are women protagonists who are written as people. Of course, this is the way women should be written: not as women, but as people. And an example of this is, yes, Katniss from The Hunger Games-- a protagonist who behaves like a normal human would, not consciously basing her decisions at all times around her gender. Honestly, another example of this would be Jane Eyre, who does not conform to the standard proprietorial ways a woman should behave-- Jane is brutally honest and says exactly what is on her mind, which is one of her most intriguing qualities. E.M. Forster, despite his worldview flaws, wrote women extraordinarily well-- not ignoring their femininity, but merely including it as a part of who they are. Look at this sentence from Howard's End, wherein Margaret, his "toothy" and opinionated heroine is attempting to discern whether or not a man has feelings for her: "She put it to herself as indelicately as possible, in the hope that her brain would cry, 'Rubbish, you're a self-conscious fool!' But her brain only tingled a little and was silent." It is a sentence that rings true as the natural thing that a woman would think in such a situation; not merely because she is a woman, but because she is a woman in that situation. She needs to figure out how to deal with it. Like a regular person would.

It's obvious why Forster knew so much about women. The man was a stud.

    -- I feel I must mention this in passing before I conclude, and it is a confession which will, I fear, alienate almost everyone I know. I don't really care for Jane Austen's protagonists. I'm quite sure that Elizabeth Bennett is very charming and very forward-thinking, and I have an uncomfortably and unfortunately close kinship to Marianne Dashwood...I could just never take them seriously. No matter how shockingly impolitely they spoke, everything still seemed so confined to their miniscule societies that it was hard to feel the weight of any of it, if you know what I mean. I am confident that this lack of appreciation for Austen is a flaw on my part, as people who are far wiser than I am adore her. I just thought that her heroines merited mention, since she has written some of the most famous females in literature. Please don't hate me.

I mean...be honest...she's not exactly gonna survive the Hunger Games, ya know?

   I hope my hastily written and, in all probability, ill-thought out ideas make some sort of sense to you. But if they don't, a thousand pardons and please, feel free to tell me what you think of feminine protagonists: how ought authors to treat them? And etc. et. al.

Let's Talk About...The Hunger Games.

    While I wouldn't necessarily self-identify as a cynic, I'm certainly not overly optimistic when it comes to book-to-movie adaptions. Years of movies like Prince Caspian, Alice in Wonderland, and Eragon have hardened me against the prospect of a good book becoming a good movie. So I was really, really prepared for The Hunger Games to disappoint.
    It didn't. Miracle of miracles, it turned out to be one of the best adaptions I've ever seen. Disclaimer: It's been two years since I last read the book cover-to-cover, so my recollection of minor details may not have been spot on. However, HG managed to stay true both to the spirit of the book I remember reading, and to all of the major details. That's not to say they didn't leave things out; of course, an adaption can't remain 100% the same from page to screen, but nothing necessary was ignored, nothing was changed to the point of serious deviance from the source material, and the small changes that they did make, for the most part, led to a stronger film.

Especially this guy. Every extra scene with him in it was like a gift from the gamemakers.
OF THE MOVIE
#Meta

     I do want to address briefly something I've talked about ad nauseum previously, which is, of course, the subject matter of the story itself. The reactions to it from Christians have been across the board, from  those who wholeheartedly accept it to those who reject it without consideration-- I don't think either of these is the correct response. There is an argument that the entire setup is a false dilemma and displays situational ethics at their worst. (Doug Wilson wrote this article to coincide with the release of the movie, expanding it from a brief review he wrote while reading the book: http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Reviews/christians-and-the-hunger-games.html). It's definitely a legitimate concern, especially when it comes to the book, in which Katniss is willing to do whatever it takes to survive.

    And that, incidentally, is one of the best things that comes from its silver screen debut: a drastic change in the character of Katniss herself. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss was a lot softer than the Katniss of the book. (Of course-- she'd have to be-- we can't read her thoughts, so she has to be expressive and not completely stoic). We, as the audience, never get the impression that she would be willing to kill Rue, or Peeta, or any of the other "innocent" tributes if it came down to that. (In the book, it's a lot more iffy, and she's a lot more pragmatic). In the movie, she retains a moral high ground of a sort by only seriously fighting with those tributes from the first and second districts who are there for their own glory of their own free choice.

This is what a "strong female protagonist" looks like. Take notes, world. 

     The downside of the movie is the visual aspect. While it's one thing to read an account of a death, it's entirely different to see it played out in front of you. It was actually less violent than the hype made it sound, but still-- pretty uncomfortable, to say the least. I was impressed, however, with how non-glamorous they made the violence and how much was kept off-screen rather than shown. It definitely seemed as if the filmmakers were saying, "What is the minimum amount of actual violence we can show that will still establish the seriousness of the situation without glorifying in it?", an effort I appreciated.

  That was obviously a very brief and incomplete attempt to show both sides of some of the Hunger Games issues. You can check out the archives if you're interested in more worldview stuff relating to them. But now, on to the movie itself!!! Caution: Somewhat spoilery, but I'm pretty sure most of you who are going to see the movie have already seen it.

"I don't always not drink. But when I do, I'm pretty awesome."

    Things the movie got absolutely, spot on, perfectly right:

    Katniss. Katniss, Katniss, Katniss. Oh, my goodness, was Jennifer Lawrence perfect. She brought a great balance between softness and stoicism. She was far more likeable than the book's Katniss, and she has pretty much the best speaking voice ever. (As for singing, well, that's another story.)
    Haymitch was amazing, too-- even though I still wish in the dark recesses of my heart that he was played by Hugh Laurie. Woody Harrelson did a tremendous job of making his character believable and developed without a huge amount of actual on-screen time. (Seriously, did anyone else completely lose it when it showed him watching Katniss struggle with her burnt leg, and then going out to try and get her sponsors?? :')
     All of the secondary characters were amazing-- all the tributes, all the people in the Capitol, etc. The movie had a unique feel, some seriously awesome costumes and sets, and , as I said, a near-perfect capture of the spirit of the book. (It was, by the way, an even nearer-to-perfect adaptation than the Harry Potter movies, which had their work cut out for them trying to condense 600+ page books into two hours).
    And.
    My number one favorite thing: They totally, totally, completely downplayed the love story/love triangle as much as they possibly could. I was certain they would try to make a bigger deal out of it than even the book does. But, if possible, they focused on it even less, and they really only showed the "love" angle in the context of the Games and how it saves Katniss and Peeta. I was thankful for that one, because it would have been hard to take the movie seriously if it had focused too much on cave smoochies in contrast to the backdrop of children killing other children.

In other words, these disturbingly cult-like promo images were misleading. 

      Things it got...somewhat wrong: (And let me clarify: I'm not addressing moral/ethical flaws since I've done that above and in earlier blog posts. Also, I'm nitpicking here. The movie was, over all, really good. But like anything, if you look close enough you can find some flaws.  So, here they are.)
   Gale fell into the trap I was afraid he would. (Hahahaha, get it? 'Cuz Gale makes traps?? I didn't even mean to do that!)  He just sort of came across as sensitive and meh, but he was hardly in the movie anyway.  (I will say, his reaction shots during the Katniss/Peeta scenes might be the most heartbreaking thing I've ever seen, though.)
    Lack of development-- the movie did a really good job overall, but there were a couple of things it just failed to explain: Cinna was awesome, but they never really show why he is so personally invested in Katniss or develop his character. They also didn't explain a lot of the backstory of the rebellion, so if you hadn't read the book you would have been confused by the three-finger salute, mockingjays, etc. Also, whatever they were trying to do with Cato's storyline didn't really work. It just came across as confusing.
     And, of course... Peeta. Peeta... was... not... that... impressive. I love Peeta in the books. But in the movie, he just comes across as ... wimpy. And helpless. Rather than being Katniss' moral compass, as he is in the book, he just ... doesn't really do anything.  Their chemistry was awkward, and the cave scene was one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever seen.  But, again, the movie didn't focus on that overly much, so it wasn't distracting.)
     Oh, and his camouflage tactics were downright silly, if I do say so myself.

That is a face that only a mother could love. Because it is the face of a baby. 

      All right, and the one thing that almost ruined it for me was when the tributes from 1 and 2 (and Peeta)corner Katniss and chase her up a tree. In the book, the tree is 80 feet high, and there is no way they can climb that high or shoot her. In the movie, it's about 16 feet high; they take two half-hearted shots at her and then say, "Hey, dudes, let's wait until she starves or something.".Know something, guys? I'm pretty sure if you shot at her a couple more times, or tried alternate angles, you'd get her eventually. But, no, just let her sit up there and potentially find a way to kill your whole group. That's cool, too.

      But these were honestly my only beefs with the movie. I apologize for the incoherence of a lot of these thoughts; I'm operating on like 4 hours of sleep here, gosh!! Long story short: if you liked the book, you should like the movie. And it was really nice not to have an adaptation disappoint for once.

5 Ways the Hunger Games Movie Could Get It Wrong

    The new Hunger Games movie comes out in less than a month, and man, is the world a-buzz. I feel pretty proud of myself, both for having boarded this bandwagon early (usually, I'm the last one to catch on to these things; I have only seen one Star Wars movie in theaters and two Harry Potters.), and for not fully boarding the bandwagon of craziness that is rocketing towards the stratosphere of teen fandom at a speed that puts TwiHards to shame (kind of like how the speed at which that metaphor got away from me puts me to shame). Although, yeah, I liked the books, I'm going to see the movie, and yes, I'm dressing up for the midnight premiere, I like to flatter myself that I can also see the numerous flaws in the books and maybe even predict some that will be in the movie. Here are a few things the filmmakers could do that would completely ruin the story:
     1) Glamorizing the violence. I'm almost certain this will be the case because, after all, this is supposed to be an edgy teen movie about people kicking butt and looking good doing it. While the main characters will probably dialogue endlessly about how pointless and horrible the violence is, I suspect that the footage we see will contradict everything they are saying. We will be encouraged to look at the violence, to cheer when Katniss kills someone, and to get excited over the battle scenes. That contradicts the very message of the book, and, in an ironic twist, transforms us into clones of the detached viewers from the Capital and the districts who watch the Hunger Games for entertainment. While the book showed that these people were desensitized to violence and took voyeuristic pleasure in watching horrible acts of brutality, the movie, I suspect, will encourage us to enjoy the same kind of thing. This is closely related to number two:
   2) Changing the entire mood of the books. Obviously, a movie can't really be done in 1st person present-- not well, at least. The movie is sure to give us a wider vision of Panem, since we will not always be confined to Katniss' viewpoint, but will be able to see what others are doing and thinking as well. While it could be a wonderful thing to see a fuller version of the Hunger Games universe, it could also wind up altering the feel and uniqueness of the book. For instance, the filmmakers might decide to spend a lot of time on the other tributes and the "bad guys" at the Capital during the games, a focus which might distract from the story and needlessly confuse people (like we saw in the second Narnia movie, or Prince Caspian and the Over-Exposition of Miraz and Everyone in His Army Who Speak With Thick, Inaudible Accents, as I like to call it). It also runs the risk of making Katniss mega unlikeable because, well, be honest, the only reason you even sort of liked her is because you could see what she was thinking. If you judged her by actions alone, you'd conclude she was a jerk.
    3) Messing up the relationship between Peeta and Katniss. Seriously, because the way this unfolds in the book, through flashback and then slowly throughout the games, is just perfect-- it's not supposed to be a rushed, love-at-first sight, giddy kind of love, but more of a slow and steady growth. It's going to be hard for the filmmakers to portray all the layers of wrong assumptions and deceptions that go on throughout their relationship, also (think: Peeta really loves Katniss; Katniss thinks he is only pretending to for the games; Katniss goes along; Katniss eventually loves him; she doesn't know if he truly loves her, etc. Exhausting, no? And it's hard enough when you can read thoughts; imagine the challenge of portraying that visually).
    4) Making it too modern. By this, I mean too much a product of the present day alone. I've been concerned about this ever since Taylor Swift's single, Safe and Sound,  for the soundtrack came out. It's a pretty song, and it's on my iPod, don't get me wrong, but it seems like such a teen-beckoning, 2012-y step that I'm legitimately afraid of just how dated this might already be. These fears have been further confirmed by some of the images in the trailer-- what is described in the book as a mysterious, structurally complex gown that can light on fire is pretty clearly just a strapless prom dress that can, presumably catch on fire. And the promo shots of Katniss, Gale, and Peeta, are very, very Twilight (that's not a good thing, kiddos, btw). Which brings me to my last point
     5) Ruining the characters. I know this is a really, really broad statement, so I'll try to focus just on the ways the filmmakers could ruin the characters of Katniss, Gale, and Peeta. With Katniss, my biggest fear is actually that she'll come across as a cardboard jerk. Without her first-person view, without knowing the inner workings of her mind, it would be very easy for her to appear cold, unfeeling, and pretty rude.  I think the  cardboard thing is also the biggest threat to Peeta; he's just a downright good guy, and filmmakers tend to deal with that sort of character either by making him boring and flat, or giving him all kinds of flaws to compensate, either of which would ruin the character. Gale could be too soft and Peeta-like, judging from the trailer; he seems like he's very much the sensitive type, which isn't really how he is in the book-- he's a good friend and it's easy for Katniss to talk to him because they're so similar, but he's not a big cuddly bare-your-feelings teddy bear (that dates Miley Cyrus :/). I guess what I'm saying is, it's going to be hard for these characters not to be influenced by Twilight, and we might just end up with a cardboard girl, otherworldly guy, and sensitive best friend.

    So those are some of my fears about the new movie. Gotta stay positive, right? If you want to read more about the Hunger Games and you're not sick of me yet, you can see my thoughts and incoherent babbline about the worldview of the books here: http://leahrabe.blogspot.com/2010/04/hunger-games.html 
    And heck, if you want to see how the movie might have gone if Disney had made it, check this out: http://leahrabe.blogspot.com/2010/05/derangeder-and-derangeder.html

Superhero Appreciation 3: Iron Man, X-Men, and Marvel's Box Office Success

      Marvel has been doing exceptionally well at the box office lately. I mean...they've had their share of flops: 2008's The Incredible Hulk hulked away without great success, and while Fantastic Four did pretty well in 2004,  its 2007 sequel, Rise of the Silver Surfer, made significantly less. (An aside: how crazy would it be if the Fantastic Four showed up in The Avengers and Chris Evans had to play Captain America and Johnny Storm?). However, by and large they've managed to do far, far better than DC has in the theater (I say by and large because DC still has one major, major franchise going: the new Batman series. But other than that...I mean, movies like The Green Lantern and The Green Hornet, while monochromatic, weren't big box office or critical successes).

     Iron Man was. Which I think kind of surprised everyone, since before that, Iron Man wasn't too well known -- at least, his name wasn't ubiquitous, like Super-Man or Spider-Man. (Aside in which I give up a significant amount of geek cred: it's hard for me to remember that Iron Man is Marvel sometimes, since he doesn't meet my litmus test for Marvel characters which is: "Did I meet/see this character on Marvel Superhero Island at Islands of Adventure? If not, it's probably DC or some anime nonsense"). The point though, is that Iron-Man is Marvel, and his movie did amazingly, probably due in large part to Robert Downey Jr.'s hilarious yet endearing portrayal of Tony Stark (and I also happen to think Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts is one of the best Marvel women out there, far more likable than Mary Jane and more real than Sue Storm). Iron Man was current, humorous, and action-packed--a perfect summer movie.  The only thing it really lacked, in my opinion, was a completely convincing villain (Jeff Bridges is awesome, but the whole weird robots villain duel thing...not really workin' for me). Iron-Man 2 continued the trend of awesomeness, although now that I think of it, I have next to no memory of it. Did Nick Fury or at least Samuel L. Jackson show up and was there a giant donut involved at some point?? Please, somebody help me, I swear I didn't dream this...).

     The X-Men are another of the jewels in Marvel's box office crown. All the movies so far have made quite a bit of money, and while critics and people in general didn't really care for the sloppy third movie, X-Men: The Last Stand, it did better in the box office than any of the other X-Men movies (obviously, since they went on to make two prequels). Interestingly, X-Men: First Class, the most recent movie, was the weakest box office performer. Personally, I enjoy the sequels, but my true devotion is to the first X-Men and is manifested in watching the DVD over and over again. I haven't seen First Class yet, but it comes out on DVD this Friday so I suppose I'll see it at some point here.

    Marvel does character-based superhero movies like nobody else. Think about it: would Iron Man be at all entertaining if Tony Stark acted like Steve Rogers? Would Captain America be anything but cringe-inducing if Chris Rogers acted like Tony Stark? Hypothesis contrary to fact, I know, but the point still remains: these movies are awesome because they have great characters. They don't need to have great stories (although a lot of them-- dare I say even most of them--do). They let us get to know the characters and care about them. Not that they're the only company that does this, of course, every moviemaker tries to employ this strategy. But Marvel has such strong characters already in place that it is easy for them to bring those characters to immediate, believable life on the screen.

    So that's my brief analysis of Marvel and the Box office, one that I am sure does not even begin to scratch the surface of the true reasons these movies have done so well. You of course are welcome to conjecture in your own mind as to what the reason might be. It turns out it's fascinating to compare box office profits. For me of course, probably not you. Since you probably have a 'life' and all that boring stuff.

Superhero Appreciation 2: Superman, Spider-Man, and Batman

Superman
    Superman is, of course, the archetypal, classic superhero. He has awesome powers-- super-speed, flight, X-ray vision, not to mention invulnerability. Speaking of, does anybody else think that Kryptonite shows up waaay more than it has any right to? I mean, writers have to bring it in since it's basically the only thing that can defeat him and add any interest to the story. Without Kryptonite, Superman is just an unkillable dude who goes around saving people. It's nice, but it's not very heroic-- he's not risking anything by fighting for truth, justice, and the American  International Smorgasboard Melting-Diversity Pot Awareness Way. In fact, he'd kind of be a tool if he didn't fight crime. I mean, what was he gonna be like? "Duuuude I can totally  punch this kid in the face and no one will even be able to do anything about it cuz I'm the MAN OF STEEL!"
    But anyway, back to wherever the Kryptonite comes from. I'm certain there are plenty of comic-book explanations, and maybe they even address it in the movies and I just don't remember but...Krypton was destroyed, and yet somehow anyone who's even casually interested in fighting Superman can get a hold of some kryptonite.
     Also, apparently he has an asthmatic son and something about whatever whatever, did anyone even watch Superman Returns?
Spider-Man
     Oh, Spider-Man. That superhero of superheroes. That paragon of virtue, patriotism, and strength. Also, he's my favorite.
     Now, I know there's a whole slew of you comic-book lovers out there who look down on my generation for our Sam Raimi-derived impression of Spider-Man and our zealously willing suspension of disbelief that accepts Tobey Maguire as a high-school-aged Peter Parker. But I mean...come on, those movies are awesome! The first one was a classic, the second was considered by some to be the greatest superhero movie of all time (at least until The Dark Knight came out). And the third one...well...it was at least...amusing? I guess? Oh, and it had Bryce Dallas Howard in it.
     But anyway... I know everyone's affection for the webslinger might not be as fervent as mine, so let me get a little more personal for a second and try to explain why Spider-Man resonates so much with me. First reason: Peter Parker. Hard as it may be to believe, especially considering this post's topic, I am a nerd. So of course I love Peter Parker and identify with him (and did so even more when I was twelve).  Even after Peter becomes Spider-Man, he's not perfect. He still messes up, he shrinks from heroism-- but then he tries to do what's right. And while most other superheroes have hallow alter-egos that just kind of fill the space in between crime scenes, you always know that Spider-Man is Peter, and he's going to react like Peter and share the same priorities.
    One other reason the Spider-Man movies are so awesome: the supporting characters aren't cardboard (even if Franco's acting is). Yeah, Mary Jane is super annoying at times (and she totally doesn't deserve Peter at all, but I've gotten over that and I'm not even a little bit bitter even slightly), but she comes across as a real person. Real people can be annoying at times. And yes, Willem Dafoe  is super creepy and all (seriously, freeze frame his face at any given point in the first Spider-Man, especially during those internal monologue scenes? Terrifying.), and I seriously wonder sometimes if Franco's acting is satyric performance art, poking ironic deadpan fun at bad acting-- you know, like he would shoot a scene and then post on some secret password-protected website about it, like, "haha guys, just did a scene under the influence of 3 different drugs-- im still better than tobey lol l8r" and then he'd shoot another scene the same day and be like "Just shot a scene that is, without a doubt, my magnum opus. Never has such perfection, such nuance of emotion, been captured on film by the human hand, soon to reach the human heart." and then later been like, "Lol, just kidding, I was on four drugs when I did that scene". And he only showed that password-protected blog to his three best friends, two homeless guys and a deformed trumpet player, so he could monitor their reactions for the documentary he was planning to do about them. Because that's totally something he would do, and what else could be going on? He just can't act? No no, I saw this man host the Oscars, and he is cinematic and charismatic gold, I am telling you--
    Whoa. I think that paragraph just bit its own paranthetical-statement-laden head off. But anyway, the point is, even if Norman and Harry are unconvincing at times, the tension in their relationship is anything but and really adds a dimension of personal feeling, both to the villain story and Peter and Harry's friendship.
   
     Or if you want the short answer....I'm just in love with Spider-Man.
Batman
Alright, I'm afraid it's hard for me to be objective about superheroes. If I have an abnormal amount of love for Spider-Man, I likewise have an abnormal amount of dislike for Batman. The dislike isn't without basis though, I mean, look-- when any other superhero comes to a crime scene, there's an immediate sense of comfort, relief, and imminent deliverance from danger. When Batman arrives at a crime scene, he makes it at leas 10X creepier. Another pet peeve: his only super power is "having lots of money". He's a superhero only on the absis of equipment, which I understand is kind of a thing now, what with Iron-Man, and even Andrew Garfield is supposed to swing into the May 2012 Spider-Man reboot with mechanical webshooters. But it still just feels like cheating to me.
    Also, Bruce Wayne just isn't that relatable or compelling. His only motivation seemes to be, "parents dead, scared of bats" and his whole alter-ego life consists of social galas and special invitations. Additionally, back to my first point...Batman's just creepy. Tim Burton's stylized, comic-book Batman and the recent, brooding Dark Knight are both wonderful movies with very distinct feels, but they're both dark and they're both creepy in different ways. The only time Batman's not scary is in the movies that came out in the late 90s, like Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. In those, he's just goofy and possibly homosexual.
     A caveat in the anti-Batman screed: The Dark Knight is an amazing movie and deserved every bit of hype and praide it got. It knew the tone it wanted and just went for it-- no attempts to lighten things up, just a plunge into the depths of human nature, sin, and despair. It succeeded because it was so original-- it's not what most superhero movies are like.
     I'm sure Batman Begins was going for a similar dark feel, but I don't think it succeeded. Watching Batman Begins feels kind of like watching the opera that Bruce's parents go to, if you mixed in Kung-Fu Panda, Qui-Gonn Jinn, and set the whole thing on a mountain with Katie HolmesMaggieGyllenhaal noonewillnotice. I did not care for Batman Begins.


So there it is-- as objective a critique as it is humanly possibly for me to write concerning the Big Three of the Superhero Universe.

Superhero Appreciation 1: Captain America

     I started this post originally as a commentary on superheroes and superhero movies in general, but then I realized it was getting way too long for one post and I'd need to devote several posts to these masked crusaders. And yes, I also realized that I'm a geek. So, up first and most recently, Captain America. Captain America is the only superhero movie I went to this summer--Green Hornet slipped by me (and was not sorely missed), I still do want to see Thor (if only because the titular character will be in Joss Whedon's 2012 The Avengers), and I joined millions of theatergoers in joyfully not seeing The Green Lantern.
    Anyway, even without having seen any others, I think I can venture to guess that Captain America was the best superhero movie out this summer, judging by what the critics have said and how enjoyable it was. I don't know if it "redeemed the superhero genre" as some critics went so far as to say, but it certainly had a fresh, original feel, engaging characters, and a basic element that a lot of superhero movies lately have skipped over-- the protagonist is a decent human being (more on that later).
     One thing I loved about it was the period feel-- and while it was shockingly not the only World War II Superhero movie out this summer (X-Men: First Class shared the setting, if  not quite the box office returns), it's still unusual to see superheroes in an old-timey setting, and it's a lot of fun.
    The best thing about this movie, in many ways, is the protagonist himself-- Steve Rogers/Captain America. He's not angst-ridden and tormented like The Dark Knight's Batman, and he's not snarky and lackadaisical like Iron Man's Tony Stark. He's just a good guy who wants to fight Nazis, and that's kind of refreshing after seeing egotistic heroes in most recent superhero movies-- think Peter Parker's selfish emo transformation in Spider-Man 3 and Wolverine's personal quests and gruffness in Origins and even the first X-Men. But the winner who absolutely takes the cake for least likable protagonist has to be Ryan Reynold's Hal Jordan-- like I said, I skipped The Green Lantern but the trailer alone was enough to reveal that his character was a cringe-inducingly arrogant jerk (which probably contributed to the movie's flop-- most protagonists like Spider-Man and Wolverine, even with their flaws, are deep down likable, while Hal Jordan is...not).
    Some of Captain America's secondary characters are pretty strong too, especially Dr. Abraham, Tony Stark's dad, and Steve's best friend Bucky. However, the few things that fall flat about the movie also come as a result of secondary characters; the love story involving Peggy, the stern British soldier is unconvincing (we're not really too sad to hear that he ended up missing their date by *SPOILER ALERT* 60 years, and he doesn't seem to be either), and the villain (Hugo Weaving, who should probably have taken the blue pill and stayed in the Matrix) is well...silly. At least he is after he pulls his face off-- before, when he's just a regular ol' Nazi, he is genuinely kind of creepifying, but the second that Elrond mask comes off to reveal a crimson Voldemort, he loses all dignity.
   Okay, sidenote: speaking of the villains, and this is probably just me but...the aquatic symbolism in this movie is whack. Okay, so Red Skull's organization is Hydra, but their symbol is an octopus...why?? Octupi have multiple legs, Hydra had multiple heads. Not the same thing. And then towards the end of the movie, Red Skull's ship is shaped like a manta ray, which is super cool but still left me wondering...is every aquatic animal fair game for the Nazis to exploit to represent themselves?
    The storyline is pretty strong, although as some of the reviews point out, the second half lapses mostly into  a lot of indeterminable battle scenes, which is a bit of a disappointment after the unique situations of the first act. Other elements of the plot are not given sufficient explanation, for example, the exact powers and properties of the tesseract are unclear, which is kind of frustrating when it's something so central to the plot. Until further knowledge is revealed I'm just going to have to go the L'Engle route and assume that Red Skull is now chillin with Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Which. I also have to say, the last scene is genuinely surprising, although I knew something had to happen to get Captain America into (SPOILER ALERT) present day if he was gonna join Iron Man, Thor, and the rest of the crew in The Avengers ( please allow me a *Joss Whedon squee!!!!*).
   Anyway, all in all Captain America is a pretty strong superhero movie and a fairly strong movie in general. It has some language, but other than that ends up being fairly appropriate (since, after all, "fondue is just bread and cheese, buddy"). It actually exemplifies some pretty strong morals, and while it's only "Christian" in the sense that most superheroes are Christ figures, a lot of its core principals are worth holding onto. Self-sacrifice is portrayed clearly, especially one instance when Steve is training at the army camp and a grenade is thrown into his group (the grenade is a dummy, but the soldiers don't know that). The general shouts "Grenade!" and everyone ducks for cover, except for Steve, who jumps on top of the grenade and tells everyone else to run away. Additionally, the night before Steve is to undergo the experiment, Dr. Abraham tells him, Whatever happens tomorrow, you must promise me one thing. That you will stay who you are. Not a perfect soldier, but a good man." We too have to stay true to who we are in spite of changes and circumstances-- not in a cheesy, follow-your-heart-and-be-whoever-you-want-to-be sort of way, but in an identity-found-in-Christ kind of way.

The Tides Aren't Really All That Stranger This Time Around

Warning: Here there be spoilers!  
     I think most people will go to see Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides some time this summer. It's the big summer movie that's out right now and the previous three movies were huge box office (if not critical) successes. However, while the first Pirates movie was original, interesting, and entertaining, after being dragged through the indiscernible muddle that was the sequels, I (and I know that I must not be alone in this) have had considerable trouble drumming up excitement for a new installment. However, a group of my friends decided to go and I had a little extra babysitting money so, I went. And it was okay.
     Which is really all you could expect of it. As the fourth addition to a series that I would argue ran out of clever/original material with the second movie, I don't think anyone is expecting it to be Citizen Cane. It at least has a cohesive, self-contained plot (which cannot be said of 2 and 3) which, while not enormously original, is entertaining enough. Aside from a few clever scenes (the mermaids are genius, even if they were mainly inserted in the film as an excuse to have lots of half-naked bodies slithering across the screen, and one scene where Jack escapes capture in a very innovative way involving a palm tree and rope), there's nothing here that we haven't seen--and that hasn't been done better-- in the previous three films.
     The one way that On Stranger Tides did stand out was in its spiritual content, something on which none of the previous Pirates movies had focused so extensively. The new character that they added (I suppose mainly as a Will Turner replacement) of a young missionary on board Blackbeard's ship was fascinating. I was dissapointed in his storyline though; I thought it was going to be a pretty sharp, beautiful allegory. When the pirates capture a mermaid (because they need her tears to unlock the fountain of life...I told you the plot was easier to follow than that of 2 or 3. That doesn't mean it's a piece of cake), they're all cruel to her except for the missionary. When her tank breaks, the captain tells her to walk or die, but she is unable to walk. The missionary picks her up, and she says to him, "I didn't ask for your help," and he responds, "No, but you need it." Which is, really, an amazing picture of God and us-- we would never on our own come to Him for help, but he helps us anyway. However, after showing compassion to her (and I hoped so very much that her character would be redeemed), their storyline ends when she drags him to the bottom of the sea and drowns him. Bummer.
     Another striking example of the heightened spiritual awareness of this film occurs when Jack and the rest finally do reach the Fountain of Youth. Before any can drink it, the Spanish king comes and destroys it, saying, "Why do you seek here what only God can give?" (eternal life).
     So it had its few good parts and its very few thought provoking parts. But all-in-all, it's just a summer popcorn movie-- and it doesn't really pretend to be anything else. Which I respect. In originality it is totally lacking, not ripping off its precursors alone (I think they may have actually used footage from the Will/Jack Blacksmith Shop Duel scene in the original instead of going to all the trouble of shooting new footage for the Penelope Cruz/Jack Sparrow duel {inter-parenthetical-comment-parenthetical-comment: Yes, I've already forgotten what Penelope Cruz's character was named. No, I don't care to look it up.}) but also ripping off other movies (notably, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The last scene of Pirates is the exact same as the last scene of Crusade, if you replace the Holy Grail with the Fountain of Youth. And Henry Jones Sr. with Blackbeard. And Harrison Ford with Johnny Depp, which you should never, ever do.)
      And finally, (and I think we were leading up to this with 2 and 3), Jack Sparrow just does not work as the sole, main character. A protagonist is supposed to be someone we can identify with, and in the original Pirates we had that with Will Turner (and, to a lesser extent, Elizabeth). He was young, impressionable, amazed by all the piratey/supernatural goings-on, yet still courageous and willing to face it. In other words, he was a normal person. Jack Sparrow is a great character, but he is most definitely not normal. And when he is the protagonist that we're supposed to relate to, there's a problem there. Of course, he's become normal to us because 2 and 3 went so over the top crazy with supernatural beings, krakens, giant goddessess--he was the most normal thing around for a while, and that's a problem. The Pirates movies topped themselves out a long time ago, and in the process cheapened a great character-- made someone delighfully abnormal normal.
     And Jack's not the only one they've done it to, they've done it with the whole tone of their movies. In the original Pirates, we weren't sure what genre exactly to expect: it started out as a period romance, turned into a period drama, launched into an action film, dipped briefly into thriller territory...it was its own genre, but by the 2nd and 3rd movies, it knew it was its own genre and so did we, and we knew what to expect in that genre. So what made the first one so interesting, that element of surprise and shock that we feel when Elizabeth stabs Barbossa and he pulls the knife out, unharmed, is completely missing when in every battle fifteen soldiers are killed and come immediately back to life with no explanation (seriously. In the fourth one, at one point they stab a guy and he just pulls the blade out and keeps fighting. No explanation).
    So, while it's a fun movie, On Stranger Tides is predictable and not any sort of cinematic milestone. It kind of knows that, though, and doesn't try to hard to make you think otherwise. So it's a fun movie to see once, just like 2 and 3. However, it's not gonna go down as a classic, which I genuinely think the first one might ("classic" in the Indiana Jones/Jurassic Park sense, not the Gone with the Wind sense. So we're clear).

VODT Trailer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrJQDPpIK6I