Extinction Level Entertainment

I've been catching up on a lot of 2014 movies this past week, and I'm going to get on to writing about them soon enough, but right now I just have to talk about Transformers: Age of Extinction. I have to talk about it because the fourth live-action movie in the Hasbro toy franchise might just be the best movie of director Michael Bay's career.

Now, I know what you're probably thinking: "That's not saying much," and normally, you'd be right. Bay has become known as a staple of big, explosion-laden blockbusters, dating way back to 1995 and directorial debut Bad Boys. The director has made a name for himself by making successful tentpole flicks ever since, and even though his stories and characters have been dumb as rocks (and getting dumber every time), people still want to see his movies. That's because Bay wants everything you see (in his own words) "to be awesome", and that energy tends to rub off onto the big screen and excite his audiences. But as I said, his storytelling has gotten dumber, and the first three Transformers movies are perfect examples of Bay's negative trends as a director: he doesn't know where to focus the story, his humor devolves into criminally racial stereotypes, he feels the need to pull a Lucas and create Jar Jar Binks-level caricatures for "levity", and despite everything we've been told in the past twenty years, he's really not all that great at directing action, where the characters clash in mishmashes of unreadable disaster porn.

"Take me to your Earth women."

And yet... Age of Extinction is actually pretty good. Not "great", but also not just "good for Michael Bay". In his surprising fourth turn as director of the franchise (the third was supposed to have been his last), Bay actually seems to be growing as a director. I know, I can't believe it, either! The story takes place five years after the climactic battle of Chicago from Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and in the aftermath a black ops CIA strike force has been hunting down the robotic aliens with a vengeance, with both the noble Autobots and evil Decepticons in their cross-hairs. They're even getting aid from a rogue Transformer bounty hunter named Lockdown (voiced by Mark Ryan) who seems to have an agenda of his own concerning his brethren. With the remaining "robots in disguise" in hiding, nobody knows where Autobot commander Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) is... until a damaged semi truck shows up in the barn of Texas technician Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg)...

Not even Marky Mark can stand up to these baddies...

So, to be honest, the reason I enjoyed this latest Transformers flick so much is because the whole thing is actually ABOUT something. Whereas the first three were nothing but the hidden war between the Autobots and the Decepticons and Bay's love of all things military, and yet somehow focusing mainly on the spasming face of Shia LaBeouf, Age of Extinction actually seems to have something behind the exposition and explosions. It's about being a father, as Wahlberg's character must deal with the realization that he can't always protect his daughter (The Last Airbender's Nicola Pelz) from the dangers of the world. It's about racial profiling in a post-9/11 scenario, as we see the human bad guys (played by Kelsey Grammar and Titus Welliver) expound "us vs. them" speeches without discerning between the evil and innocent under their gaze, with one even having lost family in the aforementioned Chicago battle. It's about cloning, corporate greed, the dangers of too-soon scientific progress, genocide, a veteran soldier's bitterness at being abandoned by the people he worked so hard to protect, and what it means to be a living being. There are deep, philosophical discussions to be made of any of these topics, and they all have a part to play in the plot. Now granted, Bay is not necessarily the best man to be putting these ideas out there alongside his CGI mayhem and robotic dinosaurs, but that he does so well introducing these ideas to a major Hollywood blockbuster makes you wonder if he's secretly been growing as a director while the world has scoffed as his "artistic achievements" thus far.

If struts could kill...

Another major upgrade made to this sequel is the cast. Gone are the boring, adolescent hi-jinks of Sam Witwicky and his useless, pointless, interchangeable love interests Megan Fox/Rosie Huntington-Whitely. Gone are the requisite military bad-asses and really just pointless cameos Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson. Gone are wacko John Tuturro, Witwicky parents Kevin Dunn and Julie White (who were appreciated by absolutely no-one), and almost every racist and sexist stereotype (just almost, because... Michael Bay) that has plagued the franchise to this point. They're replaced by a mostly-solid group of actors, especially Wahlberg in the lead. Finally, Transformers fans have a thoughtful, likable human protagonist who actually does things that MATTER, far beyond just being a cosmic MacGuffin who improbably gets the girl through sheer audience annoyance. Wahlberg has showed a heft of talent over the years, and working with Bay again (they paired up for last year's awful Pain & Gain) as an off-type everyman works surprisingly well, thanks to the equal parts tough guy and compassionate man that the role required, to which the actor took exceptionally well. He gets some good support as well, not only from Grammar and Welliver (the former also gleefully playing against type), but also Stanley Tucci as a results-oriented scientist dreaming of greatness, Sophia Myles (Madame de Pompadour!) as a geologist who discovers that what we know about Dinosaur extinction isn't necessarily true, Resident Evil: Retribution's Li Bingbing as Tucci's surprisingly kick-ass assistant, and even T.J. Miller providing a bit of decent comic relief in the first act. And the Transformers themselves get a bit more attention this time around, with the voices of Cullen, John Goodman, Ken Watanabe and John Dimaggio providing more personality and depth than we had seen from this group in the previous three entries. I've been saying for a while that the series needed to focus more on the titular heroes if it wanted my respect, and Bay actually seems to have addressed that issue, putting them front and center and writing some excellent material for the voice actors to work through. It's almost as if the director actually WANTED to make a Transformers movie this time around.

'Murica!

Not everything works out, however. Bay's dislike of strong women seems to show no sign of ending, as the woman who gets the most screentime is the whiny, bratty, completely useless Nicola Pelz. And her character isn't that great, either (zing!). Frankly speaking, Tessa Yeager just makes no sense, in one scene decrying the head-in-the-sky nature of her inventor father and declaring herself the real manager of the household, the next screaming for her "daddy" to save her from the giant robots battle she's too stupid to run in the opposite direction from. Even her singular "redeeming" moment is shortchanged, as she really doesn't do anything besides help her boyfriend (played blandly by Jack Reynor) do one solitary - albeit admittedly important - task, and it never really makes up for how insufferably annoying she is. Forget comparing her to Megan Fox - whose uselessness was at least mitigated by her coolness and take-charge attitude - Pelz's role and performance make Rosie Huntington-Whitely look like an Oscar-caliber actress. If there's one thing that could be said positively about Pelz, it's that she does a better job here than she did in the abomination that was The Last Airbender, but anybody who saw that knows that pieces of rotting driftwood could have done better.

No, wait, Chevy Camero! Better time! 'Murica!

Another downside - or at least a surprisingly inconsistent element - is the SFX use, which most of the time looks positively gorgeous but on occasion flickers into cartoonish territory. And it's not the Transformers animations, which you could forgive for having more uncanny valley than the average Robert Zemeckis movie. No, those look crisp as ever, and combined with the excellent voice-work, make for some amazingly compelling visuals. No, it's the smaller effects that stand out, such as when some human characters are scaling down a building side, and the CGI is just SCREAMING, it's so noticeable. Bay does use some practical effects, but when he uses computers to render something other than the title's main characters, it just doesn't look quite right. This is a shock when you consider how relatively flawless the previous entries were as far as special effects went (it was universally the best aspect of those moves) and how Bay has essentially built his career on said big screen spectacle. It's only a minor gripe, nowhere near the worst the film has to offer.

It's a robot... with a sword... riding a robotic T-Rex. I have no words.

Now, despite the praise I've been heaping on the movie brought to us from Bay and screenwriter Ehren Kruger (whose last great screenplay was The Ring, and that was an American remake of a Japanese classic), I'm not saying that Transformers: Age of Extinction is great. Like I said, despite the surprising depth and metaphor present in the story, Bay still is still not the best director at developing the "human element". The ending is a bit rushed, the only reason they filmed the third act in Hong Kong was a blatant attempt to cash in on the Chinese box office, the product placement is fairly obvious, and the characters often refer to things they couldn't have learned but for a choppy film editing process. The movie also feels a bit long at almost three hours, though it should be pointed out that it never feels as long as, say, Zack Snyder's fellow advertising firm Man of Steel.  But despite these perfectly obvious blemishes, to Bay's credit he doesn't do a half-bad job, either. The action is actually pretty clear, and despite some pointless slow-motion bits (like Pelz' dialogue, Bay doesn't always know how to properly emphasize) the battle sequences are engaging and pretty easy to follow, the antithesis of the first three.

Speech, speech! Oh, who am I kidding, we all know he's going to make a speech.

For the director, this surprising maturity between the first three Transformers movies and now really does bring this fourth entry to a whole other level, blending some serious filmmaking with his usual bombast and bright shininess to create something that isn't entirely brainless and idiotic. I know that might sound like damning with faint praise, but I'm just SHOCKED that Bay was able to create a movie this GOOD and I'm not sure how to say good things about his work. Every action director usually has ONE really good movie, but as Bay really hasn't had one yet, I thought perhaps he had peaked back in the 90's. But - and I'm totally serious when I say this - Michael Bay has made the best movie of his career, and it's a good action film. Not just good compared to Armageddon, or to The Island, or to any of his previous Transformers movies. No, Michael Bay has actually created his magnum opus, a surprisingly cohesive popcorn film that doesn't automatically offend your sense of intelligence every time someone opens their mouth. And Age of Extinction is actually a whole lot of fun, to boot. Sure, you probably need to see the previous dreck to get a full sense of the storyline as a whole, but even if you're not a hardcore fan of the 80's toy craze, there's still a lot to appreciate about what has transformed here.

Open Letters Monthly: Jack the Giant Slayer

Wow, I've been gone for a little bit, huh? This week was an abysmal one for writing, almost as bad as the weekend grosses for Jack the Giant Slayer, 21 and Over, The Last Exorcism Part II and Phantom. I'll return to regular posts next week, but while it's generally accepted that nothing good hits the movies this time of year, you would at least hope that an up-and-coming star and a generally reliable director would be enough to carry a potentially fun movie.

In an ancient age of kingdoms and legends, Jack is just a simple farm boy, tricked into trading his pony for a handful of beans. When one manages to send his house and a wandering princess into the clouds via a giant beanstalk, he joins a group of knights seeking to rescue the young woman from her fate. But they'll have more to contend with than heights, as charlatains, Giants and other dangers threaten to make sure that nobody - Jack included - will ever make their way back down to Earth.

Jack the Giant Slayer is directed by Bryan Singer and stars Nicholas Hoult, Eleanor Tomlinson, Stanley Tucci, Ian McShane, Bill Nighy, John Kassir, Eddie Marsan, Ewen Bremner and Ewan McGregor.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

Don't Tell Me the Odds

Yup, that time has finally arrived. Only two things kept me from going to the midnight release of The Hunger Games and writing my review it this past Friday. One, midnight releases, in my eyes, are a group thing. I've gone to midnight release showings by myself in the past, but there's simply no replacing the experience of that frantic conversation you have at 2 a.m. with the people who witnessed it all alongside you. That's what makes going to a midnight release so much fun, often even more than the film itself. Second, Todd had become interested in the highly-anticipated film, but as she was unable to attend a midnight release show (the downside of any typical office job) we instead saw it on Saturday. We still didn't avoid the crowds, though. In fact, I ran late getting to the theater, and so we were lucky to get good seats at all. I don't think I have to go into just how popular the teen novel trilogy, written by Suzanne Collins, has become the past few years. My day job is at a bookstore, and I estimate that every third customer the past month has been buying The Hunger games or one of its sequels, on average. There was no doubt that the film adaptation would be just as successful, and with an opening weekend of $155 million, it's the owner of the largest opening weekend for a non-sequel film, besting former leader Alice in Wonderland by a healthy margin.

One of you must die... who shall it be?

But that's not the whole story. Despite being all the rage with teens and young adults these past few years, more than a few experienced readers/movie lovers (myself included) will tell you that The Hunger Games is little more than a poorly-transcribed copy of Battle Royale, written by Japanese author Koushun Takami, which spawned a film and manga series in its own right. Certainly, there are a number of easy comparisons between the two, most notably corrupt governments enforcing their hold on the huddled masses by pitting the children of their citizens against one another in a fight to the death. To appeal to teens exclusively, however, Collins did make some changes, including a strong female lead and a love triangle for the teens to focus on, almost Twilight-like in its execution. In fact, the supernatural series has been mentioned often in comparison to the Hunger Games franchise, almost exclusively because of that romance story. That doesn't mean you can only like one if you enjoy the other (or dislike for the same reason). While Twilight held no interest for me, my reading of The Hunger Games was quick and enjoyable, and I'll certainly read the sequels before too much time has passed. I can definitely understand why teens get so excited about the series, but it makes one wonder what the result will be when what worked so well on paper gets transferred to the big screen?

"Wait... you mean we're not here for a disco dance-off?"

Seventy-four years ago, the Civil War against the Capitol of Panem ended with the government forces utterly defeating those of the twelve rebelling provinces. As retribution and a constant reminder not to rise against their leaders, the capital holds an event called the Hunger Games. In it, a male and female child between the ages of 12 and 18 is picked at random as "Tributes" from every district and brought to the city, where they are trained in combat and wilderness survival. After that, they are dropped into an arena filled with weapons and other dangers and forced to fight to the death, with the whole event televised in every district. Of twenty-four teenagers, there can only be one victor. This year, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) finds herself the female contestant for District 12, and while she is a talented hunter with a strong will, the measure of any Tribute can only be measured by what they are willing to do and sacrifice in order to survive.

Yuck it up, kids; you're all dead soon enough.

It's obvious from the start why The Hunger Games wasn't slated for a mid-summer release. Usually films released in June and July sport the kind of special effects that draw most of the attention from the director, rather than a script or acting. Just look at last year's Transformers: Dark of the Moon for a perfect example of a film that made a ton of money just for looking pretty, what I call the "Victoria's Secret" method of filmmaking. However, Lionsgate Films is an upstart film production company, without the financial resources of the big studios. They scored a coup by securing the rights to The Hunger Games (trending on a focus towards teen films), but they only spent $78 million to make this film, and to be brutally honest, it looks it. The actual visual effects are sparse, usually looking every bit the green screen or CGI abominations they are. To obscure the violence, director Gary Ross employs the evil tactic of "shaky-cam" to make sure you can't tell what the hell is happening at any given time. Note to directors: this only confuses and frustrates your audience. STOP IT. The sets feel small-scale as well, with scenes like the early ones of District 12 feeling too compact to be whole communities. However, the effects department shines when it comes to its use of makeup, which helps perfectly convey the attitudes and nature of the people who live in this universe. From the dirty coal miners of District 12 to the insane amount of opulence of the citizens of the Capitol, you really get a feel for the personalities of these areas thanks just to even the merest glance.

"Of course, I care about you, Jacob... I mean Gale."

However, it's a shame that the makeup is the best thing I have to say about this film. The overall acting is fine (and in some cases even better), but marred far too much by the trite dialogue the main actors are forced to recite. Let's face it: this was never going to be Hamlet, but I expected much more with this cast. Some of the actors are simply perfect in their roles. Liam Hemsworth doesn't get to do much but exist in the beginning, but you can easily see why he was chosen to play the strong Gale, one of Katniss's two potential love interests. Elizabeth Banks also stands out as Effie Trinket, Katniss's insufferable escort in preparation for the Games. Banks has been pretty consistent lately, and hopefully casting directors will give her more challenging roles in the future as a reward. Other solid and enjoyable performances come from Donald Sutherland as the Capitol President, Lenny Kravitz as the stylist Cinna, Stanley Tucci as a famous television personality, and Amandla Stenberg as a fellow Tribute named Rue.

Woody Harrelson; perfectly cast, imperfectly directed

But other roles were not done nearly as well, mostly due to how poorly they were written. When Woody Harrelson was cast as alcoholic former Hunger Games winner Haymitch Abernathy, it was widely accepted that this was a good call. However, the role never really fleshes out despite Harrelson's best efforts, and the result is a character that we just don't care about, or wouldn't if we hadn't read the book. Journey 2's Josh Hutcherson is fine as District 12 Tribute and love interest Peeta Mellark but doesn't really look the "strong baker's boy" part he's supposed to portray. But the most disappointing might be Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen, when all is said and done. The problem with Lawrence is not her ability but indeed what she's given for material. There's very little that makes Katniss a character worth rooting for, despite care made to make her a strong, solitary young woman. A natural hunter and used to being on her own, Katniss makes for a better contestant than she does a regular human being, and that's the character's problem; while Peeta is not as strong a combatant or survivalist, he does have the easygoing charm that people gravitate towards, making him imminently sympathetic to audiences. Not so with Katniss, who lacks anything akin to a personality despite the best efforts of Lawrence as an actress. I was honestly worried that Lawrence wouldn't live up to her Academy Award-nominated breakout in Winter's Bone after she stunk up X-Men: First Class, but it seems my fears were unfounded. Now if only Katniss Everdeen could be as well-written as she should be, and Lawrence (and the franchise) would be all set.

The new Crocodile Hunter, anyone?

Finally, there are a few more serious issues with this film. Some have to do with the film itself, the others having to do with the tale-telling of The Hunger Games in general. The ending. which wraps up much too quickly and with far too many holes in the tale left unclosed, is a disaster, and can be laid directly at the feet of Ross, who was obviously unprepared for this type of film after directing more family-friendly fare such as Seabiscuit and Pleasantville in his career. That he's already slated to direct the upcoming sequel is a head-scratcher, as he doesn't do this franchise any favors in this first installment. His attempts to escape Collins's Katniss-only narrative (arguably the book's weakest aspect) are poorly conceived and executed, the only tangible benefit being more Sutherland than I had at first expected. Finally, I had a criticism that Todd herself brought up: the whole method of using the Games to keep the Districts down simply makes no sense. If the Capitol had demanded that adults be tributes, then it makes sense, because at least that could be argued to be fair and just, even if it was morally wrong. But putting children in danger would present a whole host of side effects, from the rising risk of rebellion (what parents would do to protect their children), to drastically reducing populations (who would want to have kids to risk losing them in the games?) in areas that provide necessary resources for the Capitol. It's almost as if they make the teens compete to artificially create a story appealing to young readers/viewers, and to Hell with the cultural likelihood. Huh.

For the record, Mr. Anderson likes the ponytail look.

Despite what must seem like a scathing review (Already I can hear a crowd of fangirls outside my window, baying for blood), I actually enjoyed The Hunger Games as a decent sort of action film, despite its glaring issues. Obviously, this is no masterpiece, and I'm not sure anyone was expecting otherwise. I can at least appreciate The Hunger Games for its fantasy, as I liked The Woman in Black for its scares and Safe House for its acting, ignoring their other flaws. The only thing I can hope is that Ross and Lionsgate recognize what the problems were, and rectify them in the upcoming sequels. This was a film I really wanted to like, but sadly turns out to be just another okay 2012 release, debuting at #9 for the year. This film had a lot of potential, but lapsed thanks to an overly-chopped narrative, mediocre effects and a rabid fandom that overly-hyped it into oblivion. I expect and demand better from them in the future. If you're a fan of these books, you should too.

Rocket's Red Glare

The summer blockbuster train continues en route to 2012's Joss Whedon-directed Avengers movie, this time introducing to feature film audiences Marvel Comics' stalwart defender of freedom in Captain America: The First Avenger. Created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, Captain America was introduced to comic book fans in 1941 as a World War II hero who was made to be poster child for patriotism of the American soldier. Strong of mind but weak of body, Steve Rogers' bravery in volunteering for a risky procedure to fight the evils of Nazi Germany was the stuff of legends, and during the war Captain America was among the most well-received comic book heroes. That popularity faded with the War's end, but in 1964 he was brought back from the dead, revived from suspended animation to lead one of the most iconic superhero teams of all time... can you guess it? Yup, The Avengers team was partially as big and important as it was thanks to a thawed-out WASP from the forties. Since then "Cap" has been truly one of the most important characters in comics, though seemingly always overshadowed by flashier, grittier heroes such as Iron Man, The Hulk, Wolverine and Spider-Man. That lack of sparkle has always been a problem for him, and that was the main reason I wasn't sure whether I'd like this new film. Cap has always been relatively somber and focused, more of a sounding board for wittier men and women to bounce their best material off of, all the while unflappable and dedicated to his mission. This doesn't always make for a great main hero however, so director Joe Johnston was going to have to be near-perfect if he wanted this title to be close to Thor or the under-loved X-Men First Class in terms of sheer film quality.

Woah... Big Guns...

After failing at attempts to enlist in five different cities due to his physical malnutrition and stunted growth, Brooklyn-born Steve Rogers (Boston native Chris Evans) doesn't know what to do. Men less brave than he are headed overseas to battle the oppressive forces of Nazi-occupied Europe, and Steve so desperately wants to join their ranks. His desire is not to kill men, but to combat evil, and even seeing his best friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) off to war without him is almost too much for him to take. He finally gets his chance when Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) approaches him and offers a chance to get into the fight. Recruiting Rogers into his "Super Soldier" test program, Erskine injects Rogers with a secret drug that manages to transform the weak New Yorker into a bonafide power house, and eventually into a true-blue American hero.

Results are not typical. Do not take the Super Soldier Serum without first consulting your doctor.

Of course, the story of Captain America is pretty much academic, and not at all the reason you're going to see it in the theater. You're going for the special effects, explosions and gunfire, as well as 3D imagery and IMAX surround sound, and for those attributes this film is not at all lacking. Though more circumstance than pomp reigns the film's first half, once the action kicks in there is very little not to glue your eyeballs to. Even many non-combat sequences are well shot, with choreography and cinematography working extremely well together. Say what you want about Johnston's body of work (Jurassic Park III and The Wolfman, take your pick), but he does occasionally make good use of the camera in front of him. Sound effects are also nice and loud, for those of you who have yet to completely blow out your eardrums. The only real complaint I had was with the 3D, as has often been the case this year. With most visual technology, the best thing you can say about it is when you can't tell it has been implemented. The Incredibles is my foremost example, when you see the near-real island forests in that film's final act. 3D doesn't work that way. When a film is 3D, the audience needs to feel immersed while also being aware at the enhancement, which to be fair is a difficult line to toe. It certainly isn't IMPOSSIBLE, but very few films have adequately used 3D to properly stand out from their typical 2D variants.

Steve Jobs' early attempt to harness iPod technology goes a bit awry

It seems odd that I name my blog after a line from Hugo Weaving when Weaving has barely been made mention of at all in my work. My Transformers review notwithstanding, Weaving has simply not been in too much that I've seen of late, and his 2010 effort The Wolfman was ignored by me on the recommendation of several others. Still, I've loved the effort he has brought to modern-day iconic titles like The Matrix and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and nobody can doubt the talent he carries with him on the set. In this way, he is perfect as an unfortunately one-note villain, Captain America's arch-nemesis The Red Skull. Though Skull doesn't have too much depth to him, Weaving does his best to create a genuine menace around this simple character, one which dramatically poses while spewing generic. cliched bad guy lines, all the while berating his lackey (an underused Toby Jones) and rarely doing his own dirty work. That he still carries one of the film's better performances is as much a testament to his talent as one to the lack of strong character throughout Captain America. Chris Evans would not have been my first choice to play the eponymous superhero, but once again he surprises me with his ability to ease into whatever his director asks him to do, and that pure ability makes him worth more than a dozen Taylors (Lautner or Kitsch, or any other for that matter). If he's not one of the biggest stars in Hollywood a decade from now, something will have gone terribly wrong. And Stanley Tucci reminds us that he is in fact one of the businesses' best workers, giving a real heart to a character that probably would have been overlooked by other filmmakers. More than Evans, Tucci steals every scene in which he appears, the film being all the better for his abilities.

Putting her best chest... I mean FOOT forward

It's a shame the rest of the cast doesn't step up to the plate as much as those three. True, the simplistic dialogue and sparse character development is the biggest culprit, but the performers' inability to overcome these obstacles simply cannot be ignored. Best of "the rest" is Hayley Atwell as British Agent Peggy Carter, Cap's love interest and bad-ass soldier in her own right. A recent trend in the female hero community has brought us Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow and Natalie Portman as Jane Foster, strong characters that could go toe to toe with heroes and villains alike, whether by Jane's intelligence or Widow's more... PHYSICAL methods. The film tries to make Peggy Carter too much of both, and then fails to meet either standard. She does play well off of Evans, but in fairness so does everybody else. Relative unknown Dominic Cooper is fine and makes some waves as Howard Stark, father of the modern-day Iron Man, but is too patterned after Howard Hughes to be original in the slightest. Sebastian Stan tries his best as Cap's sidekick Bucky Barnes but doesn't quite fit the bill, while his character is marginalized to the point that true fans would (and do) cry foul. Tommy Lee Jones is by far the worst, playing the same damned tough-guy old man character you've seen him play a hundred times before. Sure, he chews up scenery like nobodies business, but there are no surprises with him anymore. Throw in a bunch of under-developed cannon fodder and you have a nice war film, but not one that capitalizes on the rich history of the comic book characters inherent.

Here's a nice action scene to soothe your palette

At about the film's halfway mark, the story breaks down to random battle scenes and violence that could only be referred to as gratuitious. While not BAD, it definitively strays from the strong narrative we that had been standard issue for Marvel Comics films this year. From this sequence, it takes far too long to get back on track, and it would have probably been easy to make a trilogy of films surrounding the shambles of bits and pieces strewn throughout. When you compare this tale to the cohesive stories of most of the other superhero films released in 2011 (and yes, by that I mean even Green Lantern), it's the one thing that prevents Captain America: The First Avenger from being among the best action films this year. A strong showing among that lot help damper excitement surrounding this title, especially with it being portrayed as an elaborate lead-in to The Avengers in the first place. As nice as it was to see the familiar red, white and blue hero make a successful transition to the big screen, Captain America works better in a group, and that's most of what I'm looking forward to in the 2012 blockbuster. Still, I had a lot of fun and would at least recommend checking this one out, at least as long as you avoid the useless 3D showings.