Thunderbolts

Eh, it wasn't bad. Thunderbolts has some great fight scenes and snappy dialogue. Beyond that, it doesn't offer much.

Going in, I thought it was going to be Marvel's version of the Suicide Squad. But while there are some similarities - the team is composed of former criminals, after all - it's really not the same kind of movie.

Spoilers:

Picking up the story right after Captain America: Brave New World, Elaine from Seinfeld is about to lose her job, so she tries to tie up all her loose ends at once. She gives each of her secret operatives a mission to watch one of the others, and sends them all to the same location so they can fight it out in a deathtrap. Then they figure it out, and team up to stop her.

But of course that's not all. Because another one of Elaine's scrapped projects wakes up and becomes super-powerful, and becomes the main villain of the movie.

My issues with the movie are thus:

First of all, I don't really like any of the characters. Most of them are Temu versions of older heroes. Yelena is Dollar Tree Black Widow, while Red Guardian, John Walker, and yes, even Bucky are all discount Captain America. I guess Ghost is pretty original, but she has no personality whatsoever. She needs a catchphrase or a personality quirk or something to stand out.

I'm also a little bothered by how much homework this movie requires. You'll want to watch the Falcon/Winter Soldier Disney Plus series to know more about John Walker. You'll have to watch Ant-Man 2 to know Ghost. Yelena, Red Guardian, and Taskmaster all came from the Black Widow movie, which several of my friends skipped. I'm really glad they brought back these secondary characters, especially since they spent so much time introducing them. But since Endgame, a lot of viewers are starting to skip movies that don't look good, so they might not know these characters yet.

But I guess my biggest problem with the movie was the humor. You either find Red Guardian funny or you don't, and the script banks heavily on his antics. I find him more annoying than funny, honestly, so a lot of the humor fell flat for me.

Bigger Spoilers:

The Taskmaster thing. If you've paid any attention to people online, you know what I'm talking about. One half of the fanbase was already annoyed because she isn't like the Taskmaster from the comics. The other half is now annoyed because she gets killed off early in Thunderbolts. Seems like that would make the first half happy, since it leaves room for a new Taskmaster in later films. But really all it proves is you can't please everyone.

Personally I'm with the half that hated to see her get killed off. She was brainwashed when she was a villain, so she really didn't deserve such a fate. But like Suicide Squad, they probably wanted to kill off one character early so the audience feels like anyone can die.

Biggest Spoilers: 

Following Brave New World, this is the second MCU film in a row where the final confrontation comes down to talking to the villain. In fact, the Thunderbolts literally save the day through the power of hugs. Personally I'm okay with this. It's nice to occasionally see a climax that doesn't involve punching each other to death. But people are going to complain about the Disneyfication of the MCU.

Captain America: Brave New World

So I finally got around to watching the new Captain America movie. I have to say, it's much better than I was led to believe. I kept hearing people call it a "hot mess" without really explaining why.

It has a pretty straightforward plot. General Ross is now president; he's trying to be a better person while also covering up the sins of his past. The Leader (who Ross had once kept prisoner and exploited) brainwashes a bunch of people to make Ross look bad. One of the Leader's machinations turns Ross into a red Hulk, leading to the climax.

I wish I could put spoiler tags in the above paragraph, but what's the point? The trailers spoiled everything this time. 

I like that there's bad guys on both sides, and that the villain has a good reason to be angry. The best villains were always the ones who had a point, like Magneto or Killmonger.

The action scenes were great, as were the special effects. It has plot holes, but it's a comic book movie. Show me one MCU film that doesn't have plot holes. I wish there was a little less exposition - sometimes there was a little too much time between action scenes.

Two movies are required viewing to fully prepare for Brave New World: The Incredible Hulk and The Eternals. This is sad because Incredible Hulk is 17 years old now, older than a lot of Brave New World's viewers, so some people might not remember who this "Samuel Sterns" guy is. And of course, The Eternals was a long, boring film that no one really wants to remember.

But I think the worst part is that Brave New World feels like a Hulk film. It 100% feels like a Hulk storyline, with Hulk characters galore. But no Hulk. Mark Ruffalo got cheated. Justice for Mark!

Some people complained about the Leader's design, but I think he looks great. And let's face it, he'd have looked ridiculous if they'd used his original comic book design. Other people complained that a non-powered hero like Sam shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the red Hulk, and they're right. But those people didn't actually watch the movie, which addresses that.

This isn't the best Captain America movie, but that's a high bar, and it holds up with the others just fine. Honestly, I hate to throw the word "racism" around, but I do have to wonder about people who loved the first three Captain America movies and hated this one. No, it doesn't make you racist if you dislike Brave New World, but when people consistently only hate on the more diverse Marvel movies, it starts to paint a picture.

Has quality gone downhill since Endgame? Sure, overall, I guess. But there's still plenty to love in some of the recent movies, and I wish people would stop calling for the death of the MCU. Brave New World is proof that there's plenty of excitement still left in the series.

By the way, don't bother sticking around for the post-credits scene. There is one, but it's pointless.

Ranking the DCEU

1. Wonder Woman (2017)
2. Aquaman (2018)
3. Shazam! (2019)
4. The Suicide Squad (2021)
5. Suicide Squad (2016)
6. Birds of Prey (2020)
7. Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
8. Justice League (2017)
9. Man of Steel (2013)
10. Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
11. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

This one is kind of hard, because honestly, none of these movies are as good as the MCU.  That really pains me, because I grew up liking DC more than Marvel.  I'm hoping the upcoming Flashpoint movie reboots things in a way that allows future DC movies to be, well, fun.  That's not asking for too much, is it?  Superhero movies that actually make me smile?

I've already blogged about most of these movies, but here's some specific notes.  In release date order, with links to my original blogs (if I blogged them):

Man of Steel (2013) - Not terrible, but it was overly long and dull.  Superman is supposed to be full of optimism, but this movie shoots for more gritty realism.  But the bigger sin is that it set the tone for this entire series of movies.  Want to know why the DCEU never reached the heights of the MCU?  Bad foundation.  

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) - AAAAAAAUUUUUUGGH!  'nuff said.

Suicide Squad (2016) - Fun, quirky, but suffered a lot from bad editing and the lackluster ending.

Wonder Woman (2017) - The closest the DCEU comes to a perfect movie, but it kind of runs out of steam halfway through.  I wish the villain had been cooler.

Justice League (2017) - Kind of fun, but full of flaws.

Aquaman (2018) - I debated on whether this should be number one.  Both this and WW are strong movies, maybe the only two A-list movies in the series, but Aquaman felt sort of silly in ways Wonder Woman did not.  It was a tough call.

Shazam! (2019) - Again, DC just can't make a perfect movie.  Who is this for?  On the one hand, it's light-hearted and feels like a kid's movie.  On the other hand, it has some of the scariest scenes in the entire DCEU.  But it is fun, like a Shazam movie should be, and a lot more entertaining than most of the movies on this list.

Birds of Prey (2020) - A beautiful mess.  This has the distinction of being the last movie I saw in a theater, and isn't that sad?  Overall, I liked it, but they really didn't know what they were doing here.

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) - I really wanted this one to be better, but there's just too many flaws.  Gal Gadot is as amazing as ever, but the story just isn't very good.

Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) - Of the two Justice League cuts, this one is the better movie.  But it's less fun than the theatrical cut, and that's why it's farther down the list.

The Suicide Squad (2021) - I'm not even sure if this counts as a DCEU movie, as it's sort of considered a soft reboot.  But there's no reason it can't exist in the same universe as the films that came before it.  Anyway, it's worth seeing.

The Suicide Squad

I don't know, I kind of liked the first Suicide Squad movie.  It had a dull "final boss" and it wasn't edited very well, but it was fun and had a quirky charm.  But most people didn't like it.  Go figure.  

2021's "The Suicide Squad" seems to have a lot more fans.  I can see why.  If nothing else, the final battle is a lot cooler.  But the two movies are similar enough that it's hard to review one without comparing it to the other.  So, a quick comparison:  

I like the characters better in the second one.  King Shark beats Killer Croc, hands down.  

I like the dialogue better in the second one.  Some of the comedic exchanges are pure gold.  However, it reminded me a little of Joss Whedon, in that it was obvious that all the dialogue was written by the same person. 

I like the soundtrack better in the first one.  Which is funny, because James Gunn usually nails soundtracks.  Though the first Suicide Squad kind of used up most of its soundtrack in the first half hour.

One of the problems I have with most people's opinions, is that they tend to only remember the last half hour of a movie.  When I saw "Attack of the Clones" with one of my relatives, she went on and on about how the movie was just jam-packed with non-stop action.  But that's not true, AotC is actually a pretty talky movie until about halfway through.  But the last 45 minutes is very exciting, and that's what you tend to remember most.

And that's kind of how I felt watching The Suicide Squad.  I'd already heard positive buzz about it, so I went in expecting a non-stop thrill ride.  But about halfway through I found myself thinking, "So, when does it get good?"  I mean, it wasn't necessarily bad up to that point, it just wasn't the laugh-a-minute actionfest I was promised.  But when the movie finally paid off, it really paid off.

And that's another way it contrasted with the first Suicide Squad movie.  I thought the first movie had a really strong opening, and gradually got duller and duller toward the end.  

Anyway, I like both movies, but the new one is definitely better.  Neither one is perfect, but they're both pretty fun.

Invincible (Amazon Prime)

I just finished season one of Invincible.  Wow, that's some powerful stuff.  I went into this show without having read any of the comics, but some of the twists had already been spoiled for me.  There seems to be a certain genre of comics that exists only to subvert our expectations.  The problem is, edgy subversions are becoming so common, that "wholesome" is becoming the new edgy.

I think the real problem is that there's only so many plots (at least, only so many that readers find entertaining), but a seemingly unlimited number of writers.  Now that the internet can make anyone a writer (just sign over most of your profits to the Kindle store), we're seeing more copycat works than ever.  Amazon is bursting with books about vampire romance or wizarding schools.  It takes an amazing mind to come up with something truly original.

Unfortunately, Invincible isn't it.  The show is full of clever observations on the realities of super hero crime fighting, but they're not so clever that I hadn't seen these tropes before.  But at least it combines these tropes in an entertaining way.

When I first saw the trailer for Invincible, I thought, "great, another modern take on superheroes that uses graphic violence to be edgy."  But the actual show is pretty good about only using gore to make a point.  

Saving Private Ryan used violence to show the horrors of war.  The Passion of the Christ used violence to make Christ's pain seem more real, instead of the "fairy tale" quality most Biblical films have.  They weren't pandering to teenage slasher fans, they were serious movies that used violence to make serious points.

Invincible seems similar in its intentions, though it's going to appeal to the teenage edgelords as well.  When the title character enters his first mass battle against some alien invaders, he sees citizens getting blasted into pieces.  He ends up covered in blood and gore from those slain, and it rightly freaks him out.  He tries to save an elderly woman, but he ends up injuring her more in the process.  

The whole scene is there to show that being a superhero isn't as neat and clean as he thought.  Invincible (the character) had grown up reading comics and watching other heroes (including his father) fight bad guys on TV.  But that didn't prepare him for how real things would get when he became a hero himself.

When it's not making a point, the violence isn't any worse than an episode of Justice League.  The first episode's opening scene has a team of Justice League expys defending the White House from a pair of criminals.  Barely any blood is spilled, innocent lives are saved at the last minute, and on the whole it could have been a kid's cartoon.  The plot of the first episode rips a lot from Sky High, and it looks like the episode will end on a high note.  

And then, the subversion comes.  I'm not going to spoil it here, but when the tone changes, it really changes.  That said, I really wasn't surprised much.  The season had a few twists, none of which were really twisty.  Some of the so-called surprises were spoiled by memes, but they're also pretty well telegraphed in the show itself.  I mean, even my wife knows that a certain character is secretly evil, and she hasn't even watched a full trailer.

But that might be on purpose.  Maybe they want you to know certain twists going in, so you'll be even more surprised by later subversions of subversions in season two, I don't know yet.  All I can tell you is that while none of the show's tropes scream "original" to me, this combination of tropes is still pretty fresh.

I'm a little afraid to keep going, though.  It was written by Robert Kirkman, the same guy who wrote The Walking Dead.  I read the first 100 or so issues of TWD, and while it was pretty good, I don't like "anyone can die" style writers.  Kirkman's the kind of guy who will develop a character for 75 issues, then unceremoniously kill them off because he thinks it makes his penis look big.  

If I keep watching Invincible, sooner or later a character I like will die.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not so fragile that I can't handle the death of fictional characters.  But I still don't find it entertaining when a character I like is killed.

Do I recommend the show?  That's hard to say.  I'm not even sure why I like it.  But if you like superheroes, and graphic violence doesn't churn your stomach, then you could do a lot worse.  

DC Universe

I need my Marvel fix!  Okay, so Far From Home came out 7/2/19.  Black Widow doesn’t come out until 5/1/2020.  That’s just ten months, but it feels like ages.  Realistically, this is not the longest break they’ve had.  Iron Man 2 came out nearly two years after The Incredible Hulk, and Iron Man 3  came out almost a year after The Avengers… still, arguably the MCU wasn’t in full swing yet at the time.  This break just feels longer because I’m used to a new Marvel movie every five or six months now.

Still, this was a good time for a break, and the future does look pretty saturated.  To be honest, I’m more interested in some of the upcoming TV shows than the next three movies.  Specifically, WandaVision, Loki, and What If.  But those are pretty far off.

In the meantime, I’m catching up on some DC.  I’ve always preferred DC’s characters over Marvel’s, mostly because I got into them at an early age.  Those characters just mean more to me.  It really bugs me that DC has been in such a slump lately.  Yes, I loved the Wonder Woman and Aquaman movies, but they still made me say, “Wow, that’s almost as good as a Marvel movie.”  I mean, imagine if Pepsi’s new slogan was, “Pepsi: Almost as Good as Coke.”  It’s not a flattering look.

The big difference IMO: Marvel optimizes, DC reinvents.  The MCU takes the most iconic versions of their heroes, makes little changes like modernizing their costumes so they look less like cosplay, and cleans up the details that were too convoluted or made them less cinematic.  The current DC trend is to reimagine their characters – which is great for standalone movies like Joker (which I still need to see), but is terrible for building a shared universe. 

The DCEU feels like a set of Elseworlds graphic novels.  What if Superman wasn’t a boy scout?  What if Batman was shortsighted and reactionary?  What if Ares was a foppish gentleman?  What if Aquaman was a hunky dreamboat?  What if the Flash dressed like a robot?  Look, I love Elseworlds.  They’re some of my favorite comics to read.  But for movies, these reimaginings only work as unconnected, one-off films.

We cancelled our cable last year, and we’ve been experimenting with different streaming services.  We currently have Amazon Prime, Netflix, CBS All Access, Disney+, and DC Universe.  If you’re on the fence about DC Universe, it’s… well, it depends on how much you love DC.  It’s like this… Netflix has thousands and thousands of movies and TV shows, but I’m only interested in about fifteen of them.  DC Universe has, like, twenty movies and TV shows, but I’m still interested in about fifteen of them.  I exaggerate, but the channel really is light on content. 

But that wouldn’t bother me if, at the very least, they’d make sure they had everything DC.  They’re still missing a ton of DC movies.  I understand not having the newest releases – gotta give people time to buy those DVDs before you let them stream ‘em – but even a lot of the older DC films are conspicuously absent.  Everything just looks so sparse – you go into the movie section, and you see about fifteen movies.  You go into the TV section, you see about fifteen shows.  The only thing really big is the Animated Shorts section.  Maybe DC just isn’t big enough to warrant a channel.  Maybe Warner Bros should have started a streaming channel instead, and let DC be a subset of the programming, like Disney+ does with Marvel. 

But the content that’s there is pretty cool.  Right now we’re watching Doom Patrol, which is really good.  The DC Animated Universe from the 90s-2000s is also a welcome addition to our household, even though we already own the Justice League series on DVD.  We just watched the first episode of Harley Quinn, and it was very funny, but too adult for my wife’s tastes.  I’ll have to find time to watch it without her. 

We haven’t tried Titans yet, but it’s on our list.   And we’ll want to rewatch the first two seasons of Young Justice to prep us for season three.  So yeah, there’s a ton of content for us.  But still… it just doesn’t feel like a good value.  It’s about the same price as Disney+, but only has about a quarter of the content.  And I keep finding myself doing the math – if I were to just go ahead and buy all the DC content I want on Blu-Ray, how much would that cost versus a year of DC Universe?  But the truth is, it is a pretty good value if you’re a DC fan… just not nearly as good a deal as the Marvel fans are getting with Disney+.  YMMV.

Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Something Something

Birds of Prey was surprisingly fun.  I had low hopes because the trailers were just awful.  But they really are just bad trailers, almost like the studio is trying to sabotage the movie.  Don't fall for it.  And don't fall for the huge campaign against this movie being perpetuated by sexist dudebros on Twitter.

First things first - Get over the whole "they don't look like they do in the comics" bullshit.  Movies have a history of changing things up.  When Batman came out in 1989, they gave him a new black costume to make him darker and more cinematic.  The 2000 X-Men movie didn't even attempt to dress them like their comic book versions.  The absolute best version of the Joker - from 2008's The Dark Knight - is almost nothing like the comics version.  

Also, recognize that BoP is basically an origin movie.  Just because these characters don't look like their comic equivalents now, doesn't mean they won't later.

Second thing - Those of you who are worried that the movie looks too "woke" - as in, has a SJW bias - it really doesn't.  Yes, the main characters are all women, and yes, most of the males in the movie are psychopaths, and yes, there is an overall theme of female independence... but beyond that, it really doesn't hit you over the head with any sort of message or agenda.  Hell, Deadpool had a stronger "treat women like people" message than BoP does.

And speaking of Deadpool, the writing is similar.  Harley makes a lot of fourth wall jokes, and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously.  I didn't think it was quite as violent as Deadpool, but it does earn its R rating.

The characters:
Harley Quinn - Despite the Birds of Prey getting top billing, it's Harley's movie.  If you liked her from Suicide Squad, you'll like this movie.  Her best moments are when she reminds you she was once a psychiatrist, and lapses into psychobabble until she's distracted by something shiny.

Black Canary - She really didn't have much to do with her comic book counterpart, but she was still a solid character.  I felt like it didn't give her enough background to explain why she was such a good fighter.  A lot of people complained about them hiring an African American actress.  To me, that's like complaining they cast 6'2" Hugh Jackman to play a much shorter X-Man.  If they nail the role, skin tone is a tiny quibble.  And she did fine.

Huntress - She was my favorite character in the movie, but she doesn't get much screentime.  Her personality didn't seem very fleshed out, but I think that's because when she's not living for revenge, even she doesn't know who she is.  I saw touches of Starlord - the whole "Haven't you heard of me" shtick from the first GotG.  But other times, she almost feels like she didn't have any scripted lines.  Still, I liked her.

Renee Montoya - I didn't really like her.  This version of Montoya was disillusioned and fed up with the system, and she was unnecessarily foul-mouthed and irrationally unprofessional.  There was a great joke in there about how cops do their best work after they've been ordered to abandon the case and put on suspension, but this Montoya is so disrespectful to her coworkers that I'm surprised she's lasted this long on the force.

Cassandra Cain - She's a great character, but I wish they'd named her something else.  She has nothing to do with the comic book character of the same name.  This wouldn't bother me, except Cassie was a great Batgirl in the comics, and this closes the door on that version of Batgirl getting a movie any time soon.

Black Mask - Ewan MacGregor isn't bad, but he feels a little miscast.  My wife suggested Sam Rockwell might have been better for that role, and I see her point.  Black Mask doesn't really remind me of his comic book version here, but I never thought he was that interesting in the comics anyway.

The fighting choreography is fantastic.  I've heard that the fight scenes were done by the same person who did The Transporter and John Wick.  It really shows.  Great use of improvised weapons and slow-mo shots.  Unfortunately, sometimes you could spot the victim of a move getting into position to take the blow, or helping the attacker throw them.  That's an editing problem.  But the fight scenes are worth the price of admission.

I didn't like the whole 70's lounge aesthetic.  It reminded me of Quentin Tarantino and why I hate his movies.  But it wasn't so bad as to affect my overall enjoyment.

When they handed this movie to Margot Robbie, she got to choose between this and Gotham City Sirens, which would be about the trio of Harley, Catwoman, and Ivy.  Robbie chose Birds of Prey because she wanted to give the spotlight to some lesser-known characters.  But if BoP does well, Robbie will probably get to proceed with the Sirens movie.  I really want that to happen, but so far BoP isn't doing well.  So if you're reading this, please go see BoP.

I'm not going to say Birds of Prey was a masterpiece - it's just a fun afternoon, and nothing I need to see a second time.  But it's much better than the trailers make it out to be.

Superman - Deus Ex Machina?

Superman is one of the world's most popular superheroes, and yet an awful lot of comic fans hate him.

People who hate Superman often refer to him as a walking Deus Ex Machina.  He’s just so powerful, and he just has too many powers.  They say that nothing is a challenge for him, and that his comics are boring.  But they’re wrong, of course.  A character’s power level has little to do with how interesting their comics are.  They still have ways to create drama in Superman comics: They give him even stronger villains, or they put him in situations where his powers aren’t of any use.  Sometimes they also depower him, but that’s kind of cheating.  I mean, if I wanted to read a comic about a depowered super hero, I’d just pick a hero who has no powers.

Superman’s actually pretty versatile.  When he fights someone who is his physical match, the stories remind me of Godzilla.  Two incredibly tough creatures tossing each other into buildings, causing all kinds of destruction to the city around them.  When he fights someone magical like Mr. Mxyzptlk, it becomes more cerebral, with Superman solving puzzles to defeat them.  People think his only weakness is Kryptonite, but he’s also quite vulnerable to magic, alien weapons, and the fear of losing his loved ones.  The fact that he’s a big ol’ boy scout is probably his biggest weakness of all, because it means he has to hold back his full strength in order not to seriously hurt his weaker enemies. 

Yes, he has a lot of powers.  In a universe with so many super heroes in it, somebody had to win the super power lottery.  But it’s the writing that makes the difference.  

Batman, on the other hand… 

Oh, Batman.  For a guy without super powers, he has every ability it’s possible for a human to have.

Let’s see, he’s the World’s greatest detective, one of the world’s top ten martial artists, an expert ninja trained by the world’s greatest assassins… He’s one of the world’s richest people, which gives him access to the world’s greatest tech, which includes his utility belt, which, I’m sorry, but rivals the Sonic Screwdriver for being able to do whatever the plot requires at the time.

Batman has a genius level intellect, a mastery of science, and he has a photographic memory.  He’s at peak physical strength, and knows 127 forms of martial arts. He's been trained as a stage magician, he’s an escape artist, a master of disguise, he’s multilingual, he’s a pilot, he has a computer database with so much information that he can discover any enemy’s weakness, and he has an ability to plan ahead that borders on precognition.  Plus, he has a persona that strikes fear into his enemies, despite being every bit as moral as Superman when it comes to taking a life.

If you look at power levels, the only big difference between Superman and Batman is that Batman’s abilities aren’t considered “powers”.  And frankly, that’s just semantics.  If you want to argue what’s actually possible, Batman’s abilities really aren’t that much more realistic than Superman’s.  Yes, it’s technically possible for humans to do the things Batman does.  But for a single human to master every skill Batman has mastered?  That would take more years than the average human lifespan.

Besides, if he needs to, Batman can replicate any of Superman’s powers using technology.  So basically, Batman can do anything Superman can do, and much, much more.  If anybody is a walking Deus Ex Machina, it’s Batman.  The only reason Superman is always the target of this type of criticism is because comic fans prefer dark, brooding heroes to angelic paragons of morality.  So leave Superman alone!

That said...

I do wish Superman’s writers didn’t feel the need to make him the best at everything he does.  I mean, he already has the most powers, he doesn’t have to be the best at them too.  There shouldn’t be any question as to whether the Flash is faster than Superman.  Speed is the Flash’s only power.  Just give him this one.  Superman’s speed is just as impressive without having to make him as fast as the Flash.  Nor does he need to be the strongest or the most invulnerable, either. 

In many ways I find the original version of Superman more interesting.  Back when he was first designed, he was faster than a speeding bullet, but only barely.  He was more powerful than a locomotive, but that doesn’t mean he could lift a mountain.  He could leap tall buildings in a single bound, but he couldn’t actually fly.  And it was said that “nothing short of an exploding shell could penetrate his skin,” which is a lot more vulnerable than he is now.  But over the years, the writers kept giving him more and more powers, and his existing powers became stronger and stronger. 

One of my high school friends used to draw his own comic books.  He had a tendency to design absurdly powerful characters, basically gods who could only be challenged by other gods.  I remember this one character he showed me.  It was basically Superman, but with about a dozen extra powers.  

I remember my friend telling me that the only way this character could be killed is if you fired twenty-one suns into his chest.  You know, assuming you can build a cannon that fires suns in the first place, and then assuming you can get the character to stand still that long.  And how do you even load such a weapon?  Anyway, I told my friend, “Dude, there’s not going to be any drama there.  Characters who can’t be killed are so boring!”  My friend thought about that for a minute, and said, “Fine.  Thirteen suns, then.”

So my point is, Superman is a lot more interesting than some people give him credit for.  But he’s at his most interesting when he isn’t overpowered.

The Wolverine Paradox

A while back I talked about how I like a lot of movies other people hate, and vice versa.  I also posted about “Introspection Illusion”, where people don’t seem to understand the real reasons they don’t like certain movies.  Both those concepts are in full play today, as I blabber about why I like “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” better than “Logan”. 

Yes, I know.  For most people, it’s the other way around.  I don’t understand why, but people just hated Origins.  Maybe it didn’t fit with their favorite comic book version of his origin story, I don’t know.  I’m sure his origin has been retconned 30 times by now.  At one point in the comics, I think they even planned for him to be an actual super-evolved wolverine.  But I digress.  

I recognize the movie had flaws.  It had bad special effects (especially the claws, for which there was no excuse), a terrible version of Deadpool (total waste of a great character), and some minor continuity errors pop up when you try to work it in with the rest of the movies.  I personally dislike the “laser guided amnesia” trope, with Wolverine having his memories erased by a bullet.  I don’t mind that it worked, I mind the fact that Stryker knew it would work.

But none of those flaws really add up to a bad movie to me.  It still had a lot of great action scenes, decent pacing, and all the flash and flair that makes these movies fun.  It wasn’t Shakespeare, nor should it have been.  I still walked out thinking, “I want to see that again.”  I know it wasn’t one of the best X-Men films, but I don’t see why it gets all the hate it gets.  Meanwhile, “Logan” was apparently loved by everyone who saw it.

I hated Logan.  It was dull, boring, long, and depressing.  Two hours of a whiny geriatric Xavier arguing with a depowered Wolverine in the desert.  It had a few good action scenes, and I really liked Laura/X-23.  I wouldn’t have minded seeing a sequel about her, but that’s off the table now.  I just can’t understand is why Logan’s so popular.  And that’s where Introspection Illusion comes in.  Because the plot holes seem bigger in movies I hate.  I can forgive the amnesia bullet in Origins, but I can’t forgive the tree branch going through Wolverine’s adamantium spine in Logan.  

Yes, that’s right.  They establish that his powers are weaker, but his skeleton is still fully adamantium.  In fact, that’s relevant to the plot, since the adamantium is poisoning him.  So when he’s thrown against the log at the end, and the branch pokes through the center of his chest, I was a bit annoyed.  Even if it went slightly to the side of the spine, it still should have been blocked by his rib cage.

I don’t care that they killed off the character; he’s not one of my favorite X-Men.  I care more about all the X-Men who are killed off-screen before the movie started.  And maybe that’s another reason I judge the movie so harshly.  I don’t care about Wolverine, so I can’t accept him in a more dramatic role.  I watch the X-Men movies so I can be awed by all the super powers and special effects, and so I can catch all the references to the comics and cartoons.  One of the reasons Origins worked for me is because of all the cameos of other X-Men characters.  “The Wolverine” was less fun, partly because it had fewer cameos.  “Logan” was worst of all, because not only were most of the X-Men dead from the start, but even the living ones had fewer powers. 

But that’s all just rationalization.  The truth is, I liked Origins because ooh shiny, and hated Logan because zzzzzz.  It’s a gut reaction, and all the flaws in the world can’t ruin a movie if it keeps me entertained.

It’s not just a movie being more (or less) than the sum of its parts, it’s more like a movie being almost completely unrelated to its parts.  That’s the paradox – all the flaws in “Origins” add up to an entertaining movie, while all the serious drama in “Logan” add up to a snoozefest.

Avengers: Endgame (MAJOR SPOILERS)

Warning, spoilers aplenty!  Okay, so my spoiler-free review didn't have a lot of depth, but that's because it's impossible to talk about this movie at all without spoilers.  So I am writing this with the assumption that you have seen the movie.

I was in a total daze by the time I got out of Endgame.  I mean, wow, there's so much to unpack here.  Let's divide it up a bit.  I really see this as three movies in one:

Avengers: Aftermath
The first third of Endgame was slow and depressing.  I'm not complaining, because every scene was necessary and it showed just how important it was for the heroes to succeed.  But it wasn't exactly what I would call enjoyable.  It nearly brought me to tears a couple of times.  I might skip it on some future viewings.

Avengers: Time Heist
The second act was easily the most fun, and had the most fanservice.  I really enjoyed watching them replay scenes from previous movies from different angles, a la Back to the Future II, but the rules of time travel in this movie are completely bonkers.  I've already seen several articles and YouTube videos try to explain it, but the fact is that the way they approach time travel simply doesn't make sense when you examine it too closely. 

I was going to list specific examples of the parts that bothered me, but I don't want to deal with people "correcting" me and trying to explain their own interpretation of time travel.  Besides, you know what?  I don't care.  It happened the way it happened.  Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Avengers: Endgame
The climax of Endgame was spectacular.  Easily the best massive battle in the series.  Once again I was nearly in tears when all the reinforcements started showing up.  I loved the "Oh crap" look Thanos had when all the armies started arriving.

I thought the female empowerment shot was awesome, but maybe a little pandering.  My wife said it seemed like a male writer's idea of what would please their female fanbase, and I agree.  But it was a nice middle finger to all the sexist fanboys who whined about Captain Marvel.

As much as I like Captain Machina, er, Captain Marvel, I am worried that they're already overusing her as a "last ditch sudden win" device.  She's too powerful to hang out with this crowd, so it's good that she mostly stays in space.  The plot device works in this movie, but I hope this is the last time she swoops down and saves the day out of nowhere.  She also came across as full of herself, which makes it harder to like her.

The end of the movie was perfect.  The right people died (okay, I'm still upset about Black Widow, but the movie needed a sacrifice that would actually hurt the audience), and it didn't leave a lot of loose threads.  There were several references to the first Iron Man movie, making it and Endgame perfect bookends for the series.

Overall, I thought it was a great movie, but not quite as cohesive as Infinity War.  There were a lot of elements that reminded me of Age of Ultron.  AoU spent a lot of time setting up plot threads for future movies, so that those future movies wouldn't have to devote as much screen time to them.  Endgame spends a lot of time closing threads and cleaning up loose ends.  Endgame is a much better movie than AoU, but the resemblance is still there.

Back in mid-January, I posted a blog with my hopes for Endgame.  So, how well did it live up to my hopes?  Well, let's see:

"I hope Tony sacrifices himself to save Steve; it would be a perfect apology for Civil War." - Well, kind of.  Tony doesn't specifically sacrifice himself to save Steve, but he does sacrifice himself to save the universe, which includes Steve.  Either way, he earned Steve's forgiveness.

"I hope (as some have speculated) that Steve is sent back in time, and lives out his days with Peggy Carter.  It would be the kindest possible way to retire the character." - Boom!  I was very pleased with this part of the ending.  It leaves me with a lot of questions about what Steve did all those years - did he stay hidden, or is there an alternate timeline where he was a superhero back then?  But those questions don't really need to be answered, I'm just glad he got a happy ending.

"I hope time travel isn’t overused in saving the day.  The last thing I want is a “Ta-da!  The first movie never happened!” victory." - Well... At least Infinity War still happened.  They didn't just go back in time and re-fight the battle of Wakanda.  But time travel was a huge component of the second act, and I wasn't quite satisfied with how the writers decided time travel works.  But it was fun enough that I can overlook it.

"I hope we get another Thor movie.  I know four movies is a lot for one character, but Ragnarok felt like such a reboot in both content and tone, that I really want to see another Thor done in that style." - Actually, now it looks like Thor could be in the next Guardians of the Galaxy movie, and that's a pretty good substitute.

"I hope they don’t gloss over the Asgardian refugees this time.  Other than Thor’s line about how Thanos “killed half my crew”, Infinity War was maddeningly silent on the fates of Korg, Valkyrie, and the other survivors.  If they don’t mention it in Endgame and don’t make another Thor movie, then the question will bug me forever.  You know (lots of “ifs” coming), if Drax dies in Endgame (since Dave Bautista is angry about the firing of James Gunn), and if Gamora doesn’t come back to life, and if there isn’t going to be another Thor movie, then Valkyrie and Korg could make decent members of the Guardians." - Huzzah!  We now know that the surviving Asgardians are doing fine, including Valkyrie and Korg.  Also, James Gunn has been rehired, so we aren't losing Drax.

"I hope that future movies feel more self-contained.  I’m afraid that the minute Endgame is over, they’ll jump right into the build-up for the next major crossover event." - That remains to be seen, but this one didn't look like it was specifically setting anything else up, except maybe the next Guardians of the Galaxy movie.  It ended exactly like it should have, with hardly any loose ends.  Even if they never released another MCU movie, it would be a perfect 22-movie story.

"I hope General Ross gets fired, and has his career so totally ruined that he spends the rest of his life collecting discarded soda bottles to buy Ramen noodles." - This isn't touched on, and who knows if the accords from Civil War are still active.  But most of the people affected by them have moved on in one way or another.  Cap's old, Ant-Man and Hawkeye have served their time, Widow's gone.  That leaves Bucky, Scarlet Witch, and Falcon.  Will Sam be accepted as the new Captain America?  Will Scarlet Witch stay on the run?  Will Bucky have to remain in Wakanda?  These are very small questions that can be fixed by a single line of dialogue later.  But I still want to see a future movie that is nothing but two hours of General Ross getting kicked repeatedly in the balls.  Make it happen, Marvel!

Bottom line: Endgame is an excellent cap to an excellent series.  I can't wait to see what's next.

Ranking the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Here’s my current ranking of the MCU movies, best to worst.  This list changes constantly, and not just when new MCU movies come out.  Several of them are probably actually ties, and I could go back and forth on different days of the week.
Updated 7/4/2019:

1. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

2. Thor: Ragnarok

3. Guardians of the Galaxy

4. Doctor Strange

5. Captain America: Civil War

6. Avengers: Infinity War

7. Avengers: Endgame

8. The Avengers

9. Spider-Man: Far From Home

10. Spider-Man: Homecoming

11. Iron Man

12. Black Widow

13. Captain Marvel

14. Captain America: The First Avenger

15. Ant-Man and the Wasp

16. Ant-Man

17. Avengers: Age of Ultron

18. Iron Man 3

19. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

20. Black Panther

21. Thor

22. The Incredible Hulk

23. Iron Man 2

24. Thor: The Dark World

Captain Marvel

Vague-ish spoilers ahead.  Honestly, I wanted to like Captain Marvel more than I actually did.  I love the title character, and more than anything I wanted to see the internet trolls eat their words.  But I can’t in good conscience say that Captain Marvel was a great film.  It starts out too slow, it doesn’t have enough humor, and I just don’t think it’s going to be as rewatchable as the other MCU films.  It’s not a bad movie; it’s just not up to the standards of the series.

Brie Larson did an excellent job, the haters were wrong about that.  Internet misogynists have been calling her acting bland, but I think that’s just her character’s personality.  No, she doesn’t toss out quips like Tony Stark.  She’s more prone to make the occasional sarcastic remark that probably sounded funnier in her head.  I can relate to that; heck, I’m married to that.  The difference is that she was following a script, while RDJ barely reads his scripts.  They can’t all be masters of the ad-lib.  Larson’s character is an amnesiac who spent the last six years being reprimanded whenever she shows emotion or humor, so of course her personality is going to seem a little flat now.

I like the way Captain Marvel’s amnesia lets the audience learn her origin story the same way the character does, with snippets of memory sprinkled throughout the movie.  Twenty-one movies into the MCU, they’re struggling to keep them from looking like the same movie over and over.  I appreciate that this one forgoes the standard origin story format, and mixes things up a little.  The twist regarding the movie’s true villains was excellent.  And the “Cairo swordsman” approach to the final standoff was perfect.  Honestly, there’s a lot to like here.  I just wish the pacing was on par with the creativity.

I feel a bit cheated about the cat.  Everyone who saw the movie before me kept saying the same thing: “The cat steals the show.”  As a cat lover, I couldn’t wait.  But unfortunately, the cat really doesn’t have a lot of screen time.  At least, not as much as I’d been led to believe.  It doesn’t even first appear until about halfway through the movie.  I wanted more cat.

The movie never stops reminding you it’s the 90s.  This has always been a trend in movies that take place in specific decades – they end up looking more like the time period than the real life time period actually looked.  But that’s okay, the 90s were pretty nondescript compared to the preceding decades, IMO.  The soundtrack was pretty good.  Not “Guardians of the Galaxy” good, but it did the job.

There’s been a trend in prequels to show too many “how this happened” scenes, often answering questions nobody asked.  Captain Marvel only has a handful, but one of them is pretty major.  Fury’s eye…  Fans actually have wondered how the MCU version of Fury lost his eye, so I wasn’t surprised to see them reveal it here.  However, I’m not sure I love the movie’s answer.  Sure it’s funny (especially how he lies about it later), but I don’t know if I really want that to be funny.  It kind of changes the tone of Fury’s character.  I think they should have left it more ambiguous.  End the movie with him wearing a temporary patch, claiming it was still healing, leaving it unclear whether it actually heals and he loses it another way later.  It could have even been a running joke if any future movies are also set in the past – have each one show him almost losing the eye in different ways.

Is Captain Marvel too powerful to be part of the MCU?  Nah.  She seems to be about as powerful as Thor.  I imagine they’ll mostly keep her in space (after Endgame), so I don’t think she’ll cause any balance issues.  Even if she decides to stay on Earth, they’ll just use the Justice League method for keeping her from saving the day too easily.  “Oh, this week Superman’s off on a deep space mission, otherwise he could stop the Joker’s plan in 10 seconds.”  Personally I hope she shows up in future Guardians of the Galaxy movies (or vice versa).  She teams up with Rocket in some of the comics, and it’s hilarious.

I suppose my biggest gripe is my own expectations.  My three favorite MCU movies are Guardians of the Galaxy 1 & 2, and Thor: Ragnarok.  All three of those have sci-fi themes, and an over-the-top sense of humor.  I think, in the back of my mind, I had begun to associate Marvel sci-fi with that lighthearted tone.  But Captain Marvel takes itself too seriously for a movie about shapeshifting aliens.  I’ve been waiting for a MCU movie with a female lead, and I’m glad I finally got it.  I just wish it hadn’t stopped at “adequate”.

Bottom line: Captain Marvel is a decent movie.  If it had actually come out in the 90s, before the MCU raised the bar for super hero movies, I probably would have thought it was the best thing ever.  As it is, it’s only my 10th favorite MCU movie.  And for a series this good, that’s not so bad.

Infinity War and Musings on Fictional Death

While it's obvious that the victims of Infinity War's "Snapture" will come back, there's a lot of speculation about the other deaths in the movie.  Mainly Loki, Heimdall, Vision, and Gamora.  Some people are saying, "They better not bring any of these characters back, or those gut-wrenching scenes in Infinity War will lose their impact."

I'm not saying they're wrong, but here's the thing.  I've been reading comics for most of my life, and even wrote my own back in high school.  And there's something I've noticed about comic book death, and it's a rule so important it deserves to be in bold:

The cheesiness of a fictional resurrection is directly related to whether or not the resurrection was already planned when the the character died.

The best writers will plant subtle clues about the character's return, sometimes before the character even actually dies.  You often feel stupid later when you go back and discover these clues.

I'm not saying it's a universal rule.  A good writer can bring back an old character in interesting ways, and a bad writer can make a planned resurrection look like an ass-pull.  But in most cases, I believe the rule holds true.

Some examples:

Loki "dies" in Thor: The Dark World.  He shows up again at the end of the movie, though, like we all knew he would.  Not cheesy in the slightest.

In Highlander II: The Quickening, MacLeod resurrects Ramirez by shouting his name during a quickening.  The writers of the first Highlander movie probably had no intention of ever resurrecting Ramirez (or making them aliens, or having a sequel at all, really), and this comes off as very cheesy.

When Superman died in the comics in the 90s, they'd already planned his resurrection.  His return was long and convoluted, but honestly no cheesier than the Superman comics typically were already.

When Jason Todd (the second Robin) was killed by the Joker, he was meant to stay dead.  Years later he was revived as a side effect of Superboy Prime punching a hole in the universe... or something.  Do I have to tell you that's cheesy?  The animated version had him brought back by Ra's al Ghul's Lazurus pit, which isn't much better.  Todd became a popular character after that, so I'm not saying it was a bad decision... but the actual resurrection itself was pretty cheesy.

A quick and easy rule for movies: If a character shows up by the end of the same movie in which they supposedly died, it's not as cheesy.  Infinity War parts 1 & 2 (or whatever part 2 is finally called) are basically one long movie.  They were written at the same time, partly filmed at the same time, and whatever resurrections happen in part 2 were already planned when the characters died.

I'm not saying Vision or Gamora will come back, I'm just saying don't dread the possibility, you bloodthirsty miscreant.  If they come back, it will be an important part of an already planned-out story.

Who Would Win?

A few years ago I was reading a thread on some message board.  The subject: Could Superman beat the Hulk?  

Of course, hundreds of Hulk fanboys cited their evidence, while Superman lovers brought up their facts.  At least two canon examples were presented of Superman actually beating the Hulk, but the Hulk fans dismissed those issues for whatever reasons.

I think one problem comes from the fact that Hulk fanboys just picture them trading punches until one falls down.  This turns it into a simple mathematical problem.  Who hits harder?  Who can take the most punches?  But it doesn't work like that.  Superman's had his share of fistfights, but he uses his mind as least as often as he uses his fists.  He constantly faces villains stronger than himself, otherwise his comics would be boring.  If he can't beat them with his fists, he beats them with his wits.

So while a strict boxing match could go either way, an actual comic battle might end up with Superman grabbing the Hulk and flying off into space somewhere.  Or building walls around him at super speed.  Or sucking all the oxygen out of the room.  Or zipping off to the Fortress of Solitude and returning with a Kryptonian device that disperses gamma rays.

The question wasn't "Could Superman beat the Hulk in a straight fist fight where no one flies or does anything clever?"  It wasn't "Could the version of the Hulk in 1997 beat the version of Superman from 1983?"  It wasn't "Would Superman absolutely always beat the Hulk in every possible scenario?"  It was a simple, straight, "Could Superman beat the Hulk", a question which was answered with the first actual example from the comics.

Superman obviously can beat the Hulk, since he has.  "Oh, the Marvel vs DC fight doesn't count because that was a version of the Hulk that gets weaker when he's angry."  Sorry, nope, you didn't put that in the question.  There are always going to be external factors.

The Batman ones are especially funny, because the first question asked is always, "Does he have prep time?"  Batman doesn't need prep time, he's been planning for every possibly fight for decades.  One of his defining traits is that he's always ridiculously prepped.  If the Hulk ever showed up to fight Batman, Batman would already have  plan for it.  Despite existing in different universes, Batman probably keeps an anti-Hulk weapon tucked away in his utility belt.

So I hate to burst your bubble, but here is the answer to every "Who Would Win" question:

Any fictional character can beat any other fictional character if the story is written that way.

There ya go.  If Jar Jar Binks can take out a battle tank by tripping over things, then Superman can beat the Hulk.  If Squirrel Girl can beat Galactus, then Superman can beat the Hulk. If Jeff Goldblum can defeat an alien armada by using a computer virus, then Superman can beat the Hulk.

'Nuff said.

Wonder Woman, GotG2, and Spider-Man Homecoming

So, in the past month I’ve seen three super hero movies - Spider-Man Homecoming, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, and Wonder Woman.  All three were incredible, and you can’t go wrong with any of them.

Possible minor spoilers ahead.

Wonder Woman

This was my least favorite of the three, but don’t take that as a negative when the competition’s so fierce.  It’s like saying pizza is your least favorite out of pizza, sex, and video games.  It’s just that a lot of my love for the Wonder Woman movie is actually relief.  Relief that the current DC movie continuity isn’t completely cursed, and relief that a female-led superhero movie can actually do well.  The movie’s biggest strength is that it fills me with hope for future movies.  Wonder Woman gets so much right, and was so necessary to the movie industry, that it feels like sacrilege to point out the flaws. 

But to be completely honest, I think the movie is sort of generic.  90% of what I loved about the movie only worked because it was Wonder Woman.  If they’d swapped her out for a male character (let’s say Hercules if we want to keep the general theme), it would have been just another forgettable action flick.  I love the movie, but it’s not going to be as rewatchable as the Marvel films.

Most movies try to save the best stuff for the end, but I found WW more entertaining at the beginning.  The first half of the movie is outstanding, but the it gets a little dull towards the end, and the final battle is just your standard boss fight.  The villains didn’t exactly sweep me off my feet, and the casting of the Big Bad seemed like an odd choice.  More than anything I see the movie as a foot in the door, proof that female superheroes can succeed in Hollywood after all.  In a future where female-led superhero films are more common, I’m not sure Wonder Woman will really stand out much.  But the success of Wonder Woman means that future might actually happen, and that’s very important.

Guardians of the Galaxy 2

This is my favorite of the three.  If you liked the first one, it’s more of the same, though there’s more character development this time.  While I love the first GotG, the characters were one-dimensional quip-generators, kind of like Suicide Squad in space.  The sequel gives them more depth, which slows down the movie but not enough to make it boring.

The opening battle is one of my favorite movie sequences of all time.  From the trailers, that particular fight looked underwhelming to me.  But in the film itself, they actually made the scene better by taking the focus off the fighting itself.  For spoilers sake I won’t to go into detail, but it had me dancing and singing in my seat.

People find me strange because I’m not very much into music.  (Well, that’s not the only reason they find me strange.)  In my life I’ve owned maybe 3 tapes and 6 CDs, and the ones I’ve owned haven’t seen a lot of use.   I don’t have to listen to music while I’m driving, I don’t go to concerts, and I never just sit and listen to music while doing nothing else.  I generally consider music as something to keep it from being too quiet, but I've never been into it.  And yet, roughly 50% of my love for the GotG movies has to do with the soundtrack.  The music ties into the action so well, that I simply can’t imagine the same films with a standard issue orchestral score.  I’m happy to report GotG2’s soundtrack is just as good as the first, if not better.

GotG2 is definitely the most rewatchable of the three movies I’m reviewing here, and I can’t wait to wear out the blu-ray when it’s released.  I will say that of the three, this movie is the least child-friendly (which is a weird thing to say about a movie with a talking raccoon).  I don’t know if I would bring a small child to this one, as some of the language is a little strong for young ears (including a scene where they talk about Ego's penis), and some of the death scenes are a bit graphic.  Not actually bloody, just… explicit.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

A lot of people complain about reboots, and the Spider-Man franchise is their go-to example.  Personally, I’m okay rebooting a series if you have a good reason for doing so.  But I do hold a reboot to higher standards – did you really have an idea worth throwing out the old continuity?   In this case, definitely yes.  Bringing Spidey into the MCU was the best thing that could have happened to the character.  It changes the character so much.  In the previous films he’s pretty much the only superhero in the world (as far as we know), but in the MCU he has people to look up to.  Instead of just “I can outdo myself and help more people,” now there’s the additional element of “I want to impress the Avengers.”

I think the smartest thing they did was skip his origin story almost entirely.  At this point everyone in the audience knows how Peter got his powers, and there was no reason to waste screen time on it.  There’s one short conversation about getting bitten by a radioactive spider, but there’s almost no mention of Uncle Ben or how power relates to responsibility.  Instead Peter’s moral code is just based around “it’s the right thing to do,” which is deep enough for a 15-year old boy, as far as I’m concerned.  I think the Civil War movie summed it up best when Peter said, “When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen? They happen because of you.”  Which is basically a different way of saying “with great power…” but sounds a lot more like how people actually talk.

Michael Keaton did a great job, and I found him a lot more believable than the ax-crazy moustache-twirling villains Spider-Man usually fights.  In some ways I found his motivations a little too understandable, and I have to wonder how many of my friends would turn to supervillainy if presented with the same circumstances.  Occasionally he'd lapse into his Beetlejuice voice for a second, which was distracting, but I didn't mind.

I loved the overall tone of the film.  When the Ant-Man movie came out I kept saying how glad I was to see them using different genres.  Instead of everything being just a “Superhero Action” film, some of them focus on comedy, sci-fi, drama, and so on.  Well, Homecoming is a high school comedy that also happens to be a super hero film.  I’ve seen several reviewers compare Homecoming to a modern John Hughes film, which might be giving Homecoming too much credit, but it’s easy to see what they mean.

So if you only get to see one of the above movies, which should you see?

Well, GotG2 is my favorite, but for other people I’m going to have to recommend Spider-Man.  I think it has more universal appeal.  But let’s face it, if you’re fanatic enough to be reading this, you’re probably going to see all three eventually.

Batman v Superman: How Do You Screw That Up?

I really wanted to like this one.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is dull.  It's not terrible, it's not unwatchable, it's just incredibly dull.  Too many shots are filmed in slow motion, there's too many pointless dream sequences, and there's just too much exposition.  I think it could possibly have been saved through editing, but even some of the "good" parts were a letdown.  Let's break it down:

Superman - As in Man of Steel, this is a more realistic, less idealistic take on the character.  This is a guy who doesn't always know the right thing to do, and isn't the World's Oldest Boy Scout we've seen in other incarnations.  His motivations are real and human, and he does his best to be a good person. Unfortunately he's also just plain boring most of the time.  I still love his costume, and it looks even better now because this time it's in color. 

Batman - Ben Affleck is a perfectly acceptable Batman.  Unfortunately he's written as a big thug with lots of good tech.  There's a couple of scenes that show off his ninja skills, but his detective skills are blatantly absent.  His reasons for wanting to stop Superman are absolutely nuts, not the conclusions of a professional thinker.  The movie has an Idiot Plot where at least an hour could have been shaved off just by having people talk to each other, or even think a little bit harder.  "World's Greatest Detective" my ass.

Personal nitpick:  There's way too much imagery of Batman using guns, which is a big no no for the Batman mythos.   Okay, arguably he doesn't technically fire an actual gun at any point, but between dream sequences, tracking devices fired from normal-looking guns, Batmobile weapons, etc... it's like the writers really wanted to use the Punisher instead.  All the theatrical Batman costumes have had fake muscles, but this one takes the cake.  Batman's look is obviously taken from The Dark Knight Returns, and that's fine, but this suit is so bulky it takes out the "lithe" aspect out of his character.  

Lex Luthor - I love the concept.  Lex as a young genius is great, it reminds me of the older comics when he was a mad scientist instead of a millionaire.  But his performance comes out more like the Joker than Lex Luthor.  His motivations make no sense, except that he really is just insane.  Okay, there are reasons for the things he does, if you're invested enough to pay that much attention, but still... surely there are simpler ways to entertain himself.  And his voice grated on my nerves.

Wonder Woman - Truly the high point of the movie, every scene with WW was spectacular.  I can't think of a single complaint about this take on the character.  I'm looking forward to the Wonder Woman movie, partly because Zack Snyder isn't directing it. 

The Plot - Most of the movie builds up to the fight.  There's lots of misunderstandings, with Supes and Bats each thinking the other responsible for things they didn't do.  It tries its hardest to show why these characters feel they need to hurt each other, but we've already seen these characters fight in other media, for much more believable reasons. 

When the actual fight finally happens, it's a bit of a letdown.  It's just not a very well-done fight, I'm sorry. But - once B&S stop fighting and become friends (if that's a spoiler, you're an idiot), the movie actually gets pretty good.  I would not mind watching the final 20 minutes a few more times, but the rest of the movie is too plodding to ever slog through again.

There's several scenes that foreshadow future movies, and some of those look pretty interesting.  I'm not going to give up on the DC cinematic universe.  If they'll just get some different directors, give up on that "humor embargo", do more editing, and maybe take some inspiration from the Justice League animated series... who knows?  All the ingredients are there, they just need some better cooks.

Injustice: Gods Among Us (and the Mortal Kombat Series)

Lately we've been playing Injustice: Gods Among Us.  But before we talk about that, let's go back a little.

I always had a love/hate relationship with the Mortal Kombat series.  I was a teenager when the first one came out, and at the time it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen.  Yes, the violence was attractive to my tasteless 18-year old mind, but that wasn't the biggest draw for me.  I loved the digitized actors, and some of the special moves (Scorpion's rope, Sub-Zero's freeze) were a lot more interesting than Street Fighter's punches and fireballs.  Unfortunately MK1 didn't translate very well to home systems.  I don't mean the censorship (which was annoying but didn't really make the game less fun), it's just that none of the home versions really got the controls quite right.

They made up for it with Mortal Kombat 2, which was uncensored and had better graphics, tighter controls, more characters, and lots of secrets to discover.  My fiancee KJ (now my wife) and I played that one for months.  Mortal Kombat 3 was a bit of a letdown.  No big graphical upgrade, and initially they took away some of the most popular characters.  These fighters returned in Ultimate MK3, which was nice, but it still wasn't as revolutionary as MK2 had been.  Eventually they released MK Trilogy for the home systems, and that was the pinnacle of the 2D series.  I've always preferred fighting games that have loads and loads of characters, and this was (at the time) the most I'd ever seen in a single game. 

The transition to 3D was rocky.  For me, Mortal Kombat 4 was basically a tech demo - like they were saying, "Here's the groundwork; eventually we'll be able to make a decent 3D MK game."  I didn't play much of Deadly Alliance or Deception.  Each one was better than the last, but at the time I just felt that I was "over" Mortal Kombat.

In 2006, I played Mortal Kombat Armageddon.  It was the best MK game up to that date, featuring nearly every character that had been in the series.  It was like the "MK Trilogy" of 3D MK games.  Like the previous games that I had skipped, it also had a decent single player mode that played like an adventure game.  I especially loved the Kreate-A-Fighter mode, and I wish more fighting games allowed you to build your own characters.  The only thing keeping it from being the definitive MK game was the Fatality system.  The designers tried to experiment this time, and instead of giving each fighter their own fatalities as usual, they had a weird sort of "create-your-own" fatality system where you linked together a series of brutal combos.  I never got the hang of it, and it's a dark mark on what was otherwise the height of the pre-reboot MK series.  I was certainly prepared for it to be the final MK game.

In 2008, they released Mortal Kombat Vs. DC Universe.  It was really fun for about an hour, but there just wasn't enough there to love.  It felt like the designers did just enough work to have a solid fighting game, then rushed it out the door.  I could see pulling it out again when friends are over, if I didn't already own some much better fighting games.  There is nothing hugely wrong with the game; it just goes through the motions and gets the job done.  If you see it for $10, there are worse ways you could spend the money.

In 2011, we picked up the Mortal Kombat reboot (aka MK9 or MK2011).  We bought it on a whim.  I hadn't been following the game's development, and I hadn't read any reviews of it.  KJ and I happened to see it on the shelf, and we had some extra money burning a hole in our pockets.  We were trying to decide between that and another game, and KJ was actually the one who said, "We like Mortal Kombat, let's get it."  And we played it for months.  It is so good, far better than anything the series has put out before.  The controls are tight.  My biggest complaint about the MK series was that it didn't control as easily as more serious fighters, but MK9's controls are so good that even Fatalities are a breeze to do.  It had a good-sized roster of characters, a lot of different modes and options, and a story mode that was actually interesting for a change.

Now let's be honest.  The Mortal Kombat series started as a gimmick.  First they wanted to see if they could make a fighter with digitized graphics.  Then they wanted to see how much gore they could get away with.  Later games in the series also tried to test how much skin they could show.  I recognize this, and while I have enjoyed these gimmicks in the past, I do recognize that they are gimmicks.  All these games I would enjoy until until I was out of shiny objects to find, then I'd look for another game.  So seriously, I never thought I would say this about a MK game.  But the truth is, MK9 is one of the best fighting games ever made.  If you haven't played it, and aren't put off by the violence and skimpy outfits, you can find the "Komplete Edition" (PS3, 360) for under $20 now.  It really is worth it.

And now we have Injustice: Gods Among Us.  Why did I preface my review of Injustice with a Mortal Kombat history lesson?  Well, for all intents and purposes, Injustice is the spiritual successor of MK9.  It was developed by the same set of programmers, and is very similar to MK9 in style.  The controls are a bit different (most noticably Injustice doesn't use a block button), but overall you can easily see the similarities.

So how does it measure up to its predecessor?  Well, overall I do think MK9 was a slightly better game.  It had a larger roster of fighters, and slightly more intuitive controls (in my opinion).  But truthfully, I'd have to be a more hardcore gamer to really care.

Injustice has 24 fighters (with four more coming soon as downloadable content).  The roster is split 50-50 heroes and villains, featuring most of DC's major characters.  The basic controls are simple, though some of the more complicated combos are almost impossible for me to pull off.  Granted, I'm playing on the 360, and I hate the 360's controller for fighting games.  Still, some of the most powerful moves are the easiest to perform.  You can throw background objects at your opponent by simply tapping the shoulder button.  Each character has an over-the-top Super Move which is done by pressing two shoulder buttons together.

These super moves are basically Injustice's alternative to MK's Fatalities (or MK9's X-Ray moves).  Unlike fatalities, they can be done during the match, after filling up your super meter.  It's hard to imagine anybody surviving these moves.  For example, Superman punches his opponent into space, flies after them, and punches them back to the ground.  It stretches believability a bit that people can keep fighting after getting hit by these powers, but that's nothing new for fighting games.  Seriously, how many people in real life could get hit by Ryu's fireball or Dhalsim's yoga flame and still continue the match?  Injustice just takes it a bit farther.

Also cool are the stage transitions.  Most stages have two fighting areas, and if you use the right move in the right spot, you will knock your opponent into the other part of the stage and continue the fight there.  The Mortal Kombat series has been doing this for a while, but this time the transitions are especially funny (and damaging).  If you're fighting on the roof and your opponent knocks you off, you don't just fall to the street level.  No, first you get knocked into the side of a nearby building, where a wrecking ball hits you, then you fall and land on some elevated train tracks.  The train hits you, knocking you to the street level, while the train also crashes to the ground in the background.  Again, these transitions challenge your suspension of disbelief, but they're very entertaining.

Injustice's story mode is very interesting.  Several former DC voice actors have returned, including George Newburn and Kevin Conroy.  The plot is similar to one of my favorite episodes of the Justice League animated series, but it plays out much darker.  I'm only a couple of chapters into it so far, but it already looks very compelling.  And in case you were wondering, the story mode does explain how a human like the Joker can stand up to Superman's punches.  (Update: I've now finished the story mode.  It's really good.)

Like MK9, Injustice is filled with tons of unlockable content.  Each character has an alternate outfit related to the story mode's plot.  You can unlock these outfits by spending cards you earn while playing.  There are also a lot of extra costumes that can be earned other random ways, such as by completing other game modes.  It also has some extra battle modes you can unlock, as well as the usual miscellany I probably won't bother unlocking, like concept art or music.

There's a mode called "STAR Labs" that works a lot like MK9's Challenge Tower.  You are given specific missions that sometimes involve fighting, but are just as likely to be something off-the-wall like defending the Earth from meteors.  One early mission has you controlling Catwoman's cat while avoiding museum security guards.  You even have a "meow" button.  These missions are a cool break from fighting, but a lot of them are frustratingly difficult for me.

Is it balanced?  Are the combos easy to pull off?  Is the online opponent-matching any good?  I don't know; I'm not a very hardcore gamer these days.  I will say that some of the one-button-press moves (like throwing background objects) are just as damaging as some of the moves that take more complicated button-pressing.  So lots of matches become races to see who can reach certain background objects first.  Also, some of the ranged moves (like Deathstroke's rifle) are cheap enough to be somewhat cheesy in the wrong hands.  But it's balanced enough that when KJ and I play, either one of us could win no matter who we pick.  And in the end, that's all I really care about.

The bottom line:  While I do think MK9 is technically a better game, Injustice has a lot of charm and comic geekiness that makes me like it better.  I highly recommend this game to anyone who likes fighting games and DC characters, but if you want to wait a year until a "complete" version comes out, I wouldn't blame you.

The Walking Dead

I recently read the Walking Dead comic book series.  I'd already watched the first season on TV, and a little of the second.  Several of my friends talked me into reading the comics, so I could see where the show deviated from the source material and whatnot.  I read the entire series and I'm now caught up to the current month.  I don't know if I'm going to keep reading it, though.  For one thing, I'm at a great stopping point, where I can just say "...and they lived happily ever after" rather then see how things get screwed up this time.  For another thing, I don't really like reading comics month-to-month.  A single issue of a comic is just too short, and I don't remember from one month to the next what's happening.  I'd rather wait until there's about 25 more issues, so I don't have to read it as "story McNuggets." 
 
Anyway, Walking Dead is a pretty decent comic series, though it's not the type of story I generally like.  I'm told that when it first came out, the writer said he didn't like the way zombie movies end.  The survivors always get into a helicopter or a boat, and ride off into the sunset... but you never know what happens next.  It's a world filled with zombies; where are they going to go?  So he made the comic intending to be a long-running series (it's on issue 90-something right now, with no signs of stopping), so it would cover all the day-to-day stuff: where they go for safety, how they keep finding food, and so on.

That's where the really shines, in my opinion.  They cover all the little details, the stuff you rarely see in a two-hour movie.  The longevity also gives it drama as well - they have to worry about changing weather, the longevity of canned goods, looting buildings that have already been picked clean, pregnancy, relationships, mental stability, and so on.  The movies usually all take place right after the initial event, so they don't get into these long-term problems.

The downside?  Well, it's a cruel world with very few pick-me-ups, and after a while that gets pretty depressing.  It's hard to really look forward to reading a comic where only bad things happen.  It has a large revolving cast, with people constantly getting killed off while others are introduced.  Just like in the zombie movies, no one is safe, not even the major characters.  I know many people regard this type of writing as a refreshing change of pace, but you know my feelings on downer endings.  I generally give horror a pass, zombie stories doubly so, because tragedy is an important part of the genre.  But that doesn't make it fun to read.  Some of the more significant deaths still haunt me 40 issues later.  It's no secret that the title doesn't just refer to the zombies, but to the main characters themselves (in fact, it kind of beats you over the head with it).  All the survivors are living on borrowed time.  It never seems like they're actually working toward something, except maybe a safe place to stay for a few months.  This is not a story about humans working against all odds towards ridding the world of a zombie infestation.  This is a story of the last gasps of civilization, of how the final humans struggled to postpone their deaths for a few months.

So why did I keep reading it?  Well, that just shows how well it's written.  A true test of an author is whether they can keep you interested in a type of story that generally turns you off.  There are no real "good guys" in the series.  The main characters are the heroes only because those are the characters the story focuses on.  They sometimes do selfless things, but in truth, everyone is just out to protect their own families and friends.  Some of them are idealistic at first, but that gets beaten out of them eventually.  The zombies are not the biggest obstacles in the series, and they quite often fade into the background.  Most of the story's conflict comes from other live humans.  It's a world where only the strongest survive, and that tends to breed a lot of jerks.

I've been a little obsessed with sexism in comics recently, and I'm happy to say that I don't see a lot in the Walking Dead.  Two of the most competent characters in the series are female, and I see very little gender disparity.  Both sexes get killed and maimed in relatively equal numbers.  Both sexes have strong characters, weak characters, and every personality type in between.  Others may disagree, but I don't see any evidence that the author even considers gender a factor in deciding who has the most skills or who gets killed next.  Now, about midway through the series, there was one particular rape/torture scene that made a lot of people uncomfortable.  It caused an uproar in their letters column, and they probably lost a few readers at that point.  I can't say whether this plotline was really needed, though it build the villain up to be that much more despicable.  When the victim finally got her revenge a few issues later, it was quite satisfying, though it didn't really make up for the initial crime.  That entire storyline is considered by some to be a low point in the series (and not just because of the controversy... one dramatic scene comes off so silly it's listed on the TVTropes "Narm" page), but the series does get better after that.

Anyway, whether I continue to read it or not, I'm glad I read what I have so far.  Now, regarding the TV series... it's not bad.  I really enjoyed the first season, and I like the way it goes off in so many different directions from the comic.  It's similar enough to where you say, "wow, that's good casting for that character", but it's different enough that reading the comic won't give away what happens next (or vice versa).  Like a lot of people, I did get bored during their stay at the farmhouse in the second season, and only time will tell if I start watching again.  (I'm also a little miffed that they fired Frank Darabont.) 

Really, TV series or comic, you won't go wrong to give either one a try.

Update 1/12/2012; Some Spoilers:

Okay, I was thinking it over, and there actually was one additional reason I might not return to the comic.  It's because everybody's fair game.  There's a few characters I really like, and I know they're going to die sooner or later.  It might be 100 issues from now, when sales start to falter and the writer decides he needs to shake things up a little.  But it will happen.  Heck, I'm an issue or two behind by now, so it might have already happened.  And this isn't like Marvel and DC, where death is only temporary.  But as long as I stop reading now, they'll live forever.

I know that sounds silly.  I mean, I can't just stop reading/watching all fiction out of the fear that characters will die.  But I don't look at a long-running ongoing series as "art" the same way I would with a stand-alone movie or novel.  In a novel, everything happens for a reason.  Usually the entire story is plotted out from the beginning.  Yes, the author comes up with new ideas as the story comes along, and things might not end up playing out like the author originally intended.  But there's still time before publishing to go back and edit the early chapters to make sure they're more in sync with the later ones.  The point is, novels and movies are subject to Chekhov's Gun.  Superfluous details are kept to a minimum, every death has a point, and the entire package can be viewed as a piece of art.

An ongoing TV or comic book series doesn't work the same way.  Individual episodes (or issues) might, and often even an entire TV season (or comic book story arc) will follow a novel's structure.  But very rarely will issue 94 of a comic book series feature a twist that was foreshadowed in issue 3.  The writer (if it's even the same writer by then) might wish he could go back and stick a detail into an earlier issue, but it's way too late by then.  No, series fiction just sort of plods along like life, changing with the seasons, and only the most recent events tend to really matter.  In a way, that makes them more realistic than stand-alone stories, because the patterns are less predictable.

What am I missing here... oh, yes, a point.  My point is, while a series does have some advantages over novels and movies, they are less of an "art" in my mind.  The series gets handed to different writers and artists after a while, and it becomes a communal storytelling experience, like that flashlight game you play around the campfire.  And enjoyable experience, sure, but nothing I'd stick in a museum.  Even if it keeps the same writer throughout, after a while he loses his original vision, and quality goes downhill.  Sometimes they'll keep it going long after they've run out of ideas.  This is unfortunate because the same writer might still be capable of doing something great on a fresh project.  Instead he wastes those ideas by trying to fit them into his existing universe, where they don't work quite as well.  And then his work becomes something so rotten that humanity itself is infected, causing the entire human race to die off, leaving penguins to rule the Earth.  Sorry, I was seeing if you were still listening.

In any event, I wouldn't say that the Walking Dead comic is getting stagnant quite yet, and the author probably still has a lot of great twists up his sleeve.  But so far the pattern has been "Find a safe place, make the safe place better, get betrayed by humans, find a new safe place" over and over.  It was fun the first few times, but I need a break.  I'm going to go read something else now, and let the Walking Dead survivors enjoy their current safe place.

Also, I wanted to revisit my paragraph on sexism, and clarify that my praises only apply to the comic book.  The TV series keeps missing the mark on the gender equality front.  Most of the women on the show are weepy complainers.  It's particularly irksome because one of them, Andrea, is one of the most capable characters in the comic.  On the show, she's whiny and suicidal.  But some things are actually handled better in the TV series.  The affair between Shane and Lori actually plays out much better on TV, IMO.  Shane was killed off very early in the comic, and his presence on the show almost works like the butterfly effect - that one little change makes the entire plot play out in different directions.  I like to think of the comic and the TV show as existing in the same continuity, until Shane's death splinters the timeline.  It's almost like one of Marvel's "What If" comics; you could call the show, "What if Shane had never been shot?"